The Issue The issues in this case are (1) whether the methodology for grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB pursuant to Sections 4D-1.03, 4D-1.12(1) and 4D-1.12(2), F.A.C., constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as being arbitrary or capricious and whether the gross revenue per adjusted admission screen should be adjusted by the geographic price level index adjustment factor? Mercy has also raised an issue as to whether the grouping methodology is violative of constitutional guarantees of administrative equal protection and due process. This issue, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact As a part of its responsibilities, the HCCB is required to specify a uniform system of financial reporting for Florida hospitals. Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). So that meaningful comparisons of data reported can be made, the HCCB is required by Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to provide a method of grouping hospitals. Pursuant to Section 395.509(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), every Florida hospital is required to file a budget with the HCCB for approval. Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires that the budgets of certain hospitals be automatically approved based upon a comparison of the gross revenue per adjusted admission of hospitals within groups established pursuant to Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The language of Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which requires the HCCB to establish a method of grouping hospitals, is identical to the language of Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The grouping methodology required by Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), is included in Chapter V, Section B of the Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"). This methodology has been incorporated by reference in Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D- 1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., as the method of grouping hospitals for purposes of the uniform system of financial reporting under Section 395.507, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), and the comparison of gross revenue per adjusted admission for purposes of budget review under Section 395.509, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). After hospitals are grouped, Chapter V, Section C of the Manual provides that the screens used to identify hospitals subject to further review are to be adjusted by adjustment factors. Two adjustment factors are provided; one is a geographic price level index adjustment factor. Mercy is a not-for-profit corporation which operates a general acute care hospital with 550 licensed beds located in Dade County, Florida. Based upon the application of the HCCB's grouping methodology as contained in Chapter V, Section B of the Manual, Mercy was assigned to group 9. Mercy was notified of its assignment by a memorandum dated October 10, 1984. Mercy challenged its group assignment by letter dated November 13, 1984. In its letter, Mercy challenged the grouping methodology used by the HCCB and requested a "more relevant and objective method of establishing the weights utilized in the grouping methodology . . . be developed." Further, Mercy requested that "new weights be applied and that the groups be reformulated," and that "the screening value, Gross Revenue per Adjusted Admission, be adjusted for geographic influences prior to ranking, as has been done in previous budget reviews." Mercy presented its reassignment request before the HCCB on December 13-14, 1984. The HCCB orally rejected Mercy's request. By memorandum dated December 19, 1984, the HCCB denied in writing mercy's request for reassignment. Whether Mercy should be reassigned to a reformulated group depends upon whether Mercy's challenge to Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C. is successful. If that challenge is not successful, the grouping methodology was properly applied to Mercy. The Final Order issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order holds that the grouping methodology is not arbitrary and capricious and therefore, the HCCB's adoption of Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., does not constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislature authority. Mercy's assignment to group 9 was therefore proper. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, it does not appear that the point at which the geographic price level index adjustment factor is to be applied to Mercy has been reached. Despite the fact that the evidence shows that the HCCB has decided not to apply this adjustment factor, even though it is specifically provided for in the HCCB's own Manual, the HCCB has not yet failed to do so in Mercy's case. Therefore, the question of whether the geographic price level index adjustment factor should be applied to Mercy's 1985 budget is premature.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the request for reassignment to a reformulated hospital group and the request to adjust the gross revenue per adjusted admission screen for the geographic price level index adjustment factor be denied. DONE and ENTERED this, 28th day of June, 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 28th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire PARKER, HUDSON, PAINER DOBBS & KELLY 1200 Carnegie Bldg. 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 James J. Bracher Executive Director Hospital Cost Containment Board Woodcrest Office Park 325 John Knox Road, Building L, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Douglas A. Mang, Esquire Charles T. Collette, Esquire MANG & STOWELL, P.A. P.O. Box 1019 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire PARKER, HUDSON, RAINER, DOBBS & KELLY The Perkins House, Suite 101 118 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee. Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, LMHS The applicant, LMHS, is a public, not-for-profit health care system, created in 1968 by special act of the Legislature. A ten-member publicly elected board of directors is responsible for overseeing LMHS on behalf of the citizens of Lee County. LMHS does not have taxing power. LMHS is the dominant provider of hospital services in Lee County. LMHS operates four hospital facilities under three separate hospital licenses. The four hospital campuses are dispersed throughout Lee County: borrowing the sub-county area descriptors adopted by LMHS’s health planning expert, LMHS operates one hospital in northwest Lee County, one hospital in central Lee County, and two hospitals in south Lee County.1/ At present, the four hospital campuses are licensed to operate a total of 1,423 hospital beds. The only non-LMHS hospital in Lee County is 88-bed Lehigh Regional Medical Center (Lehigh Regional) in northeast Lee County, owned and operated by a for-profit hospital corporation, Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA). LMHS has a best-practice strategy of increasing and concentrating clinical specialties at each of its existing hospitals. The LMHS board has already approved which specialty service lines will be the focus at each of its four hospitals. Although there is still some duplication of specialty areas, LMHS has tried to move more to clinical specialization concentrated at a specific hospital to lower costs, better utilize resources, and also to concentrate talent and repetitions, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Currently licensed to operate 415 hospital beds, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee Memorial) is located in downtown Fort Myers in central Lee County. The hospital was initially founded in 1916 and established at its current location in the 1930s. In the 1960s, a five-story clinical tower was constructed on the campus, to which three more stories were added in the 1970s. The original 1930s building was demolished and its site became surface parking. Today, Lee Memorial provides a full array of acute care services, plus clinical specialties in such areas as orthopedics, neurology, oncology, and infectious diseases. Lee Memorial’s licensed bed complement includes 15 adult inpatient psychiatric beds (not in operation), and 60 beds for comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR), a tertiary health service.2/ Lee Memorial is a designated stroke center, meaning it is a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport stroke patients, bypassing any closer hospital that lacks stroke center designation. Lee Memorial operates the only verified level II adult trauma center in the seven-county region designated AHCA district 8. Lee Memorial also is home to a new residency program for medical school graduates. At its peak, Lee Memorial operated as many as 600 licensed beds at the single downtown Fort Myers location. In 1990, when hospital beds were still regulated under the CON program, Lee Memorial transferred its right to operate 220 beds to establish a new hospital facility to the south, HealthPark Medical Center (HealthPark). One reason to shift some of its regulated hospital beds to the south was because of the growing population in the southern half of Lee County. Another reason was to ensure a paying patient population by moving beds away from Lee Memorial to a more affluent area. That way, LMHS would have better system balance, and be better able to bear the financial burden of caring for disproportionately high numbers of Medicaid and charity care patients at the downtown safety-net hospital. That was a reasonable and appropriate objective. HealthPark, located in south Lee County ZIP code 33908, to the south and a little to the west of Lee Memorial, now operates 368 licensed beds--320 general acute care and 48 neonatal intensive care beds. HealthPark’s specialty programs and services include cardiac care, open heart surgery, and urology. HealthPark is a designated STEMI3/ (heart attack) center, a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport heart attack patients, bypassing any closer hospital lacking STEMI center designation. HealthPark also concentrates in specialty women’s and children’s services, offering obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, perinatal intensive care, and pediatrics. HealthPark is a state-designated children’s cancer center. HealthPark’s open heart surgery, neonatal and perinatal intensive care, and pediatric oncology services are all tertiary health services. In 1996, LMHS acquired its third hospital, Cape Coral Medical Center (Cape Coral), from another entity.4/ The acquisition of Cape Coral was another step in furtherance of the strategy to improve LMHS’s overall payer mix by establishing hospitals in affluent areas. Cape Coral is located in northwest Lee County, and is licensed to operate 291 general acute care beds. Cape Coral’s specialty concentrations include obstetrics, orthopedics, gastroenterology, urology, and stroke treatment. Cape Coral recently achieved primary stroke center designation, making it an appropriate destination for EMS transport of stroke patients, according to Lee County EMS transport guidelines. The newest LMHS hospital, built in 2007-2008 and opened in 2009, is Gulf Coast Medical Center (Gulf Coast) in south Lee County ZIP code 33912.5/ With 349 licensed beds, Gulf Coast offers tertiary services including kidney transplantation and open heart surgery, and specialty services including obstetrics, stroke treatment, surgical oncology, and neurology. Gulf Coast is both a designated primary stroke center and a STEMI center. NCH NCH is a not-for-profit system operating two hospital facilities with a combined 715 licensed beds in Collier County, directly to the south of Lee County. Naples Community Hospital (Naples Community) is in downtown Naples. NCH North Naples Hospital Campus (North Naples) is located in the northernmost part of Collier County, near the Collier-Lee County line.6/ The Petitioner in this case is NCH doing business as North Naples. North Naples is licensed to operate 262 acute care beds. It provides an array of acute care hospital services, specialty services including obstetrics and pediatrics, and tertiary health services including neonatal intensive care and CMR. AHCA AHCA is the state health planning agency charged with administering the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes (2013).7/ AHCA is responsible for the coordinated planning of health care services in the state. To carry out its responsibilities for health planning and CON determinations, AHCA maintains a comprehensive health care database, with information that health care facilities are required to submit, such as utilization data. See § 408.033(3), Fla. Stat. AHCA conducts its health planning and CON review based on “health planning service district[s]” defined by statute. See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. Relevant in this case is district 8, which includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Additionally, by rule, AHCA has adopted acute care sub-districts, originally utilized in conjunction with an acute care bed need methodology codified as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038. The acute care bed need rule was repealed in 2005, following the deregulation of acute care beds from CON review. However, AHCA has maintained its acute care sub-district rule, in which Lee County is designated sub-district 8-5. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(h)5. The Proposed Project LMHS proposes to establish a new 80-bed general hospital on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 41 and Coconut Road in Bonita Springs (ZIP code 34135),8/ in south Lee County. The CON application described the hospital services to be offered at the proposed new hospital in only the most general fashion--medical- surgical services, emergency services, intensive care, and telemetry services. Also planned for the proposed hospital are outpatient care, community education, and chronic care management --all non-hospital, non-CON-regulated services. At hearing, LMHS did not elaborate on the planned hospital services for the proposed new facility. Instead, no firm decisions have been made by the health system regarding what types of services will be offered at the new hospital. The proposed site consists of three contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 31 acres. LMHS purchased a 21-acre parcel in 2004, with a view to building a hospital there someday. LMHS later added to its holdings when additional parcels became available. At present, the site’s development of regional impact (DRI) development order does not permit a hospital, but would allow the establishment of a freestanding emergency department. The proposed hospital site is adjacent to the Bonita Community Health Center (BCHC). Jointly owned by LMHS and NCH, BCHC is a substantial health care complex described by LMHS President James Nathan as a “hospital without walls.” This 100,000 square-foot complex includes an urgent care center, ambulatory surgery center, and physicians’ offices. A wide variety of outpatient health care services are provided within the BCHC complex, including radiology/diagnostic imaging, endoscopy, rehabilitation, pain management, and lab services. Although LMHS purchased the adjacent parcels with the intent of establishing a hospital there someday, representatives of LMHS expressed their doubt that “someday” has arrived; they have candidly admitted that this application may be premature. CON Application Filing LMHS did not intend to file a CON application when it did, in the first hospital-project review cycle of 2013. LMHS did not file a letter of intent (LOI) by the initial LOI deadline to signify its intent to file a CON application. However, LMHS’s only Lee County hospital competitor, HMA, filed an LOI on the deadline day. LMHS learned that the project planned by HMA was to replace Lehigh Regional with a new hospital, which would be relocated to south Lee County, a little to the north of the Estero/Bonita Springs area. LMHS was concerned that if the HMA application went forward and was approved, that project would block LMHS’s ability to pursue a hospital in Bonita Springs for many years to come. Therefore, in reaction to HMA’s LOI, LMHS filed a “grace period” LOI, authorized under AHCA’s rules, to submit a competing proposal for a new hospital in south Lee County. But for the HMA LOI, there would have been no grace period for a competing proposal, and LMHS would not have been able to apply when it did. Two weeks later, on the initial application filing deadline, LMHS submitted a “shell” application. LMHS proceeded to quickly prepare the bulk of its application to file five weeks later by the omissions response deadline of April 10, 2013. Shortly before the omissions response deadline, Mr. Nathan met with Jeffrey Gregg, who is in charge of the CON program as director of AHCA’s Florida Center for Health Information and Policy Analysis, and Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA Secretary, to discuss the LMHS application. Mr. Nathan told the AHCA representatives that LMHS was not really ready to file a CON application, but felt cornered and forced into it to respond to the HMA proposal. Mr. Nathan also discussed with AHCA representatives the plan to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial, but AHCA told Mr. Nathan not to make such a proposal. Since beds are no longer subject to CON regulation, hospitals are free to add or delicense beds as they deem appropriate, and therefore, an offer to delicense beds adds nothing to a CON proposal. LMHS’s CON application was timely filed on the omissions deadline. A major focus of the application was on why LMHS’s proposal was better than the expected competing HMA proposal. However, HMA did not follow through on its LOI by filing a competing CON application. The LMHS CON application met the technical content requirements for a general hospital CON application, including an assessment of need for the proposed project. LMHS highlighted the following themes to show need for its proposed new hospital: South Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with an older population; by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population. The Estero/Bonita Springs community strongly supports the proposed new hospital. Approval of the proposed new hospital “will significantly reduce travel times for the service area’s residents and will thereby significantly improve access to acute care services,” as shown by estimated travel times to local hospitals for residents in the proposed primary service area and by Lee County EMS transport logs. LMHS will agree to a CON condition to delicense 80 beds at Lee Memorial, which are underutilized, so that there will be no net addition of acute care beds to the sub-district’s licensed bed complement. AHCA’s Preliminary Review and Denial AHCA conducted its preliminary review of the CON application in accordance with its standard procedures. As part of the preliminary review process for general hospital applications, the CON law now permits existing health care facilities whose established programs may be substantially affected by a proposed project to submit a detailed statement in opposition. Indeed, such a detailed statement is a condition precedent to the existing provider being allowed to participate as a party in any subsequent administrative proceedings conducted with respect to the CON application. See § 408.037(2), Fla. Stat. North Naples timely filed a detailed statement in opposition to LMHS’s proposed new hospital. LMHS timely filed a response to North Naples’ opposition submittal, pursuant to the same law. After considering the CON application, the North Naples opposition submittal, and the LMHS response, AHCA prepared its SAAR in accordance with its standard procedures. A first draft of the SAAR was prepared by the CON reviewer; the primary editor of the SAAR was AHCA CON unit manager James McLemore; and then a second edit was done by Mr. Gregg. Before the SAAR was finalized, Mr. Gregg met with the AHCA Secretary to discuss the proposed decision. The SAAR sets forth AHCA’s preliminary findings and preliminary decision to deny the LMHS application. Mr. Gregg testified at hearing as AHCA’s representative, as well as in his capacity as an expert in health planning and CON review. Through Mr. Gregg’s testimony, AHCA reaffirmed its position in opposition to the LMHS application, and Mr. Gregg offered his opinions to support that position. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The framework for consideration of LMHS’s proposed project is dictated by the statutory and rule criteria that apply to general hospital CON applications. The applicable statutory review criteria, as amended in 2008 for general hospital CON applications, are as follows: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. * * * (e) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. * * * (g) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. * * * (i) The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. § 408.035(1), Fla. Stat.; § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (identifying review criteria that apply to general hospital applications). AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. In the absence of a numeric need methodology promulgated by AHCA for the project at issue, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) applies. This rule provides that the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.030 also applies. This rule elaborates on “health care access criteria” to be considered in reviewing CON applications, with a focus on the needs of medically underserved groups such as low income persons. LMHS’s Needs Assessment LMHS set forth its assessment of need for the proposed new hospital, highlighting the population demographics of the area proposed to be served. Theme: South Lee County’s substantial population The main theme of LMHS’s need argument is that south Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with a substantial and older population. (LMHS Exh. 3, p. 37). LMHS asserts that south Lee County’s population is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a new hospital because “by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population.” Id. LMHS identified eight ZIP codes--33908, 33912, 33913, 33928, 33931, 33967, 34134, and 34135--that constitute “south Lee County.” (LMHS Exh. 3, Table 4). Claritas population projections, reasonably relied on by the applicant, project that by 2018 these eight ZIP codes will have a total population of 200,492 persons, approximately 29 percent of the projected population of 687,795 for all of Lee County. The age 65-and-older population in south Lee County is projected to be 75,150, approximately 40 percent of the projected 65+ population of 185,655 for all of Lee County. A glaring flaw in LMHS’s primary need theme is that the eight-ZIP-code “south Lee County” identified by LMHS is not without its own hospital. That area already has two of the county’s five existing hospitals: Gulf Coast and HealthPark. In advancing its need argument, LMHS selectively uses different meanings of “south Lee County.” When describing the “south Lee County” that deserves a hospital of its own, LMHS means the local Estero/Bonita Springs community in and immediately surrounding the proposed hospital site in the southernmost part of south Lee County. However, when offering up a sufficient population to demonstrate need for a new hospital, “south Lee County” expands to encompass an area that appears to be half, if not more, of the entire county. The total population of the Estero/Bonita Springs community is 76,753, projected to grow to 83,517 by 2018--much more modest population numbers compared to those highlighted by the applicant for the expanded version of south Lee County. While the rate of growth for Estero/Bonita Springs is indeed fast compared to the state and county growth rates, this observation is misleading because the actual numbers are not large. LMHS also emphasizes the larger proportion of elderly in the Estero/Bonita Springs community, which is also expected to continue to grow at a fast clip. Although no specifics were offered, it is accepted as a generic proposition that elderly persons are more frequent consumers of acute care hospital services. By the same token, elderly persons who require hospitalization tend to be sicker, and to present greater risks of potential complications from comorbidities, than non-elderly patients. As a result, for example, as discussed below, Lee County EMS’s emergency transport guidelines steer certain elderly patients to hospitals with greater breadth of services than the very basic hospital planned by LMHS, “as a reasonable precaution.” Projections of a Well-Utilized Proposed Hospital Mr. Davidson, LMHS’s health planning consultant, was provided with the proposed hospital’s location and number of beds, and was asked to develop the need assessment and projections. No evidence was offered regarding who determined that the proposed hospital should have 80 beds, or how that determination was made. Mr. Davidson set about to define the proposed primary and secondary service areas, keeping in mind that section 408.037(2) now requires a general hospital CON application to specifically identify, by ZIP codes, the primary service area from which the proposed hospital is expected to receive 75 percent of its patients, and the secondary service area from which 25 percent of the hospital’s patients are expected. Mr. Davidson selected six ZIP codes for the primary service area. He included the three ZIP codes comprising the Estero/Bonita Springs community. He also included two ZIP codes that are closer to existing hospitals than to the proposed site, according to the drive-time information he compiled. In addition, he included one ZIP code in which there is already a hospital (Gulf Coast, in 33912). Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, primary service area was not persuasive;9/ the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. Mr. Davidson selected six more ZIP codes for the secondary service area. These include: two south Lee County ZIP codes that are HealthPark’s home ZIP code (33908) and a ZIP code to the west of HealthPark (33931); three central Lee County ZIP codes to the north of HealthPark and Gulf Coast; and one Collier County ZIP code that is North Naples’ home ZIP code. Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, secondary service area was not persuasive; the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. As noted above, the existing LMHS hospitals provide tertiary-level care and a number of specialty service lines and designations that have not been planned for the proposed new hospital. Conversely, there are no services proposed for the new hospital that are not already provided by the existing LMHS hospitals. In the absence of evidence that the proposed new hospital will offer services not available at closer hospitals, it is not reasonable to project that any appreciable numbers of patients will travel farther, and in some instances, bypass one or more larger existing hospitals with greater breadth of services, to obtain the same services at the substantially smaller proposed new hospital. As aptly observed by AHCA’s representative, Mr. Gregg, the evidence to justify such an ambitious service area for a small hospital providing basic services was lacking: So if we were to have been given more detail[:] here’s the way we’re going to fit this into our system, here’s -- you know, here’s why we can design this service area as big as we did, even though it would require a lot of people to drive right by HealthPark or right by Gulf Coast to go to this tiny basic hospital for some reason. I mean, there are fundamental basics about this that just make us scratch our head. (Tr. 1457). The next step after defining the service area was to develop utilization projections, based on historic utilization data for service area residents who obtained the types of services to be offered by the proposed hospital. In this case, the utilization projections suffer from a planning void. Mr. Nathan testified that no decisions have been made regarding what types of services, other than general medical- surgical services, will be provided at the proposed new hospital. In lieu of information regarding the service lines actually planned for the proposed hospital, Mr. Davidson used a subtractive process, eliminating “15 or so” service lines that the proposed hospital either “absolutely wasn’t going to provide,” or that, in his judgment, a small hospital of this type would not provide. The service lines he excluded were: open heart surgery; trauma; neonatal intensive care; inpatient psychiatric, rehabilitation, and substance abuse; and unnamed “others.” His objective was to “narrow the scope of available admissions down to those that a smaller hospital could reasonably aspire to care for.” (Tr. 671-672). That objective is different from identifying the types of services expected because they have been planned for this particular proposed hospital. The testimony of NCH’s health planner, as well as Mr. Gregg, was persuasive on the point that Mr. Davidson’s approach was over-inclusive. The historic data he used included a number of service lines that are not planned for the proposed hospital and, thus, should have been subtracted from the historic utilization base. These include clinical specialties that are the focus of other LMHS hospitals, such as infectious diseases, neurology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology; cardiac care, such as cardiac catheterization and angioplasty that are not planned for the proposed hospital; emergency stroke cases that will be directed to designated stroke centers; pediatric cases that will be referred to HealthPark; and obstetrics, which is not contemplated for the proposed hospital according to the more credible evidence.10/ Mr. Davidson’s market share projections suffer from some of the same flaws as the service area projections: there is no credible evidence to support the assumption that the small proposed new hospital, which has planned to offer only the most basic hospital services, will garner substantial market shares in ZIP codes that are closer to larger existing hospitals providing a greater breadth of services. In addition, variations in market share projections by ZIP code raise questions that were not adequately explained.11/ Overall, the “high-level” theme offered by LMHS’s health planner--that it is unnecessary to know what types of services will be provided at the new hospital in order to reasonably project utilization and market share--was not persuasive. While it is possible that utilization of the proposed new hospital would be sufficient to suggest it is filling a need, LMHS did not offer credible evidence that that is so. Bed Need Methodology for Proposed Service Area Mr. Davidson projected bed need for the proposed service area based on the historic utilization by residents of the 12 ZIP codes in the service lines remaining after his subtractive process, described above. Other than using an over-inclusive base (as described above), Mr. Davidson followed a reasonable approach to determine the average daily census generated by the proposed service area residents, and then applying a 75 percent occupancy standard to convert the average daily census into the number of beds supported by that population. The results of this methodology show that utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code primary service area would support 163 hospital beds; and utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area would support 225 beds in the secondary service area. The total gross bed need for the proposed service area adds up to 388 beds. However, the critical next step was missing: subtract from the gross number of needed beds the number of existing beds, to arrive at the net bed need (or surplus). In the primary service area, 163 beds are needed, but there are already 349 beds at Gulf Coast. Thus, in the primary service area, there is a surplus of 186 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. In the secondary service area, 225 beds are needed, but there are already 320 acute care beds at HealthPark and 262 acute care beds at North Naples. Thus, in the secondary service area, there is a surplus of 357 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. While it is true that Gulf Coast and HealthPark use some of their beds to provide some tertiary and specialty services that were subtracted out of this methodology, and all three hospitals presumably provide services to residents outside the proposed service area, Mr. Davidson made no attempt to measure these components. Instead, the LMHS bed need methodology ignores completely the fact that there is substantial existing bed capacity--931 acute care beds--within the proposed service area. Availability and Utilization of Existing Hospitals LMHS offered utilization data for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2012, for Lee County hospitals. Cape Coral’s average annual occupancy rate was 57.6 percent; HealthPark’s was 77.5 percent; Lee Memorial’s was 55.9 percent; Lehigh Regional’s was 44 percent; and Gulf Coast’s was 79.8 percent. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that a reasonable occupancy standard to plan for a small hospital the size of the proposed hospital is 75 percent. For a larger operational hospital, 80 percent is a good standard to use, indicating it is well-utilized. Judged by these standards, only HealthPark and Gulf Coast come near the standard for a well-utilized hospital. As noted in the CON application, these annual averages do not reflect the higher utilization during peak season. According to the application, HealthPark’s occupancy was 88.2 percent and Gulf Coast’s was 86.8 percent for the peak quarter of January-March 2012. LMHS did not present utilization information for North Naples, even though that hospital is closest to the proposed hospital site and is within the proposed service area targeted by the applicant. For the same 12-month period used for the LMHS hospitals, North Naples’ average annual occupancy rate was 50.97 percent and for the January-March 2012 “peak season” quarter, North Naples’ occupancy was 60.68 percent. At the final hearing, LMHS did not present more recent utilization data, choosing instead to rely on the older information in the application. Based on the record evidence, need is not demonstrated by reference to the availability and utilization of existing hospitals in the proposed service area or in the sub-district. Community Support LMHS argued that the strong support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community should be viewed as evidence of need for the proposed new hospital. As summarized in the SAAR, approximately 2,200 letters of support were submitted by local government entities and elected officials, community groups, and area residents, voicing their support for the proposed hospital. LMHS chose not to submit these voluminous support letters in the record. The AHCA reviewer noted in the SAAR that none of the support letters documented instances in which residents of the proposed service area needed acute care hospital services but were unable to obtain them, or suffered poor or undesirable health outcomes due to the current availability of hospital services. Two community members testified at the final hearing to repeat the theme of support by Estero/Bonita Springs community residents and groups. These witnesses offered anecdotal testimony about traffic congestion during season, population growth, and development activity they have seen or heard about. They acknowledged the role their community organization has played in advocating for a neighborhood hospital, including developing and disseminating form letters for persons to express their support. Consistent with the AHCA reviewer’s characterization of the support letters, neither witness attested to any experiences needing acute care hospital services that they were unable to obtain, or any experiences in which they had poor or undesirable outcomes due to the currently available hospital services. There was no such evidence offered by any witness at the final hearing. Mr. Gregg characterized the expression of community support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community as typical “for an upper income, kind of retiree-oriented community where, number one, people anticipate needing to use hospitals, and number two, people have more time on their hands to get involved with things like this.” (Tr. 1433). Mr. Gregg described an extreme example of community support for a prior new hospital CON application, in which AHCA received 21,000 letters of support delivered in two chartered buses that were filled with community residents who wanted to meet with AHCA representatives. Mr. Gregg identified the project as the proposed hospital for North Port, which was ultimately denied following an administrative hearing. In the North Port case, the Administrative Law Judge made this apt observation with regard to the probative value of the overwhelming community support offered there: “A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a ‘need’ for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens.” Manatee Memorial Hospital, L.P. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., et al., Case Nos. 04-2723CON, 04-3027CON, and 04- 3147CON (Fla. DOAH Dec. 15, 2005; Fla. AHCA April 11, 2006), RO at 26, ¶ 104, adopted in FO. That finding, which was adopted by AHCA in its final order, remains true today, and is adopted herein. Access The statutory review criteria consider access issues from two opposing perspectives: from the perspective of the proposed project, consideration is given to the extent to which the proposal will enhance access to health care services for the applicant’s service district; without the proposed project, consideration is given to the accessibility of existing providers of the health care services proposed by the applicant. Addressing this two-part access inquiry, LMHS contends that the proposed hospital would significantly reduce travel times and significantly enhance access to acute care services. Three kinds of access are routinely considered in CON cases: geographic access, in this case the drive times by individuals to hospitals; emergency access, i.e., the time it takes for emergency ground transport (ambulances) to deliver patients to hospitals; and economic access, i.e., the extent to which hospital services are provided to Medicaid and charity care patients. Geographic Access (drive times to hospitals) For nearly all residents of the applicable service district, district 8, the proposed new hospital was not shown to enhance access to health care at all. The same is true for nearly all residents of sub-district 8-5, Lee County. LMHS was substantially less ambitious in its effort to show access enhancement, limiting its focus on attempting to prove that access to acute care services would be enhanced for residents of the primary service area. LMHS did not attempt to prove that there would be any access enhancement to acute care services for residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area. As set forth in the CON application, Mr. Davidson used online mapping software to estimate the drive time from each ZIP code in the primary service area to the four existing LMHS hospitals, the two NCH hospitals, and another hospital in north Collier County, Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge. The drive-time information offered by the applicant showed the following: the drive time from ZIP code 33912 was less to three different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; the drive time from ZIP code 33913 was less to two different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; and the drive time from ZIP code 33967 was less to one existing LMHS hospital than to the proposed hospital site. Thus, according to LMHS’s own information, drive times would not be reduced at all for three of the six ZIP codes in the primary service area. Not surprisingly, according to LMHS’s information, the three Estero/Bonita Springs ZIP codes are shown to have slightly shorter drive times to the proposed neighborhood hospital than to any existing hospital. However, the same information also suggests that those residents already enjoy very reasonable access of 20-minutes’ drive time or less to one or more existing hospitals: the drive time from ZIP code 33928 is between 14 and 20 minutes to three different existing hospitals; the drive time from ZIP code 34134 is between 18 and 20 minutes to two different existing hospitals; and the drive time from ZIP code 34135 is 19 minutes to one existing hospital. In terms of the extent of drive time enhancement, the LMHS information shows that drive time would be shortened from 14 minutes to seven minutes for ZIP code 33928; from 18 minutes to 12 minutes for ZIP code 34134; and from 19 minutes to 17 minutes for ZIP code 34135. There used to be an access standard codified in the (now-repealed) acute care bed need rule, providing that acute care services should be accessible within a 30-minute drive time under normal conditions to 90 percent of the service area’s population. Mr. Davidson’s opinion is that the former rule’s 30-minute drive time standard remains a reasonable access standard for acute care services. Here, LMHS’s drive time information shows very reasonable access now, meeting an even more rigorous drive-time standard of 20 minutes. The establishment of a new hospital facility will always enhance geographic access by shortening drive times for some residents. For example, if LMHS’s proposed hospital were established, another proposed hospital could demonstrate enhanced access by reducing drive times from seven minutes to four minutes for residents of Estero’s ZIP code 33928. But the question is not whether there is any enhanced access, no matter how insignificant. Instead, the appropriate consideration is the “extent” of enhanced access for residents of the service district or sub-district. Here, the only travel time information offered by LMHS shows nothing more than insignificant reductions of already reasonable travel times for residents of only three of six ZIP codes in the primary service area. The drive-time information offered in the application and at hearing was far from precise, but it was the only evidence offered by the applicant in an attempt to prove its claim that there would be a significant reduction in drive times for residents of the primary service area ZIP codes. No travel time expert or traffic engineer offered his or her expertise to the subject of geographic accessibility in this case. No evidence was presented regarding measured traffic conditions or planned roadway improvements. Anecdotal testimony regarding “congested” roads during “season” was general in nature and insufficient to prove that there is not reasonable access now to basic acute care hospital services for all residents of the proposed service area. The proposed new hospital is not needed to address a geographic access problem. Consideration of the extent of access enhancement does not weigh in favor of the proposed new hospital. Emergency Access LMHS also sought to establish that emergency access via EMS ambulance transport was becoming problematic during the season because of traffic congestion. In its CON application, LMHS offered Lee County EMS transport logs as evidence that ambulance transport times from the Estero/Bonita Springs community to an existing hospital were higher during season than in the off-season months. LMHS represented in its CON application that the voluminous Lee County EMS transport logs show average transport times of over 22 minutes from Bonita Springs to a hospital in March 2012 compared to 15 minutes for June 2012, and average transport times of just under 22 minutes from Estero to a hospital in March 2012 compared to over 17 minutes for June 2012. LMHS suggested that these times were not reasonable because these were all emergency transports at high speeds with flashing lights and sirens. LMHS did not prove the accuracy of this statement. The Lee County EMS ordinance limits the use of sirens and flashing lights to emergency transports, defined to mean transports of patients with life- or limb-threatening conditions. According to Lee County EMS Deputy Chief Panem, 90 to 95 percent of ambulance transports do not involve such conditions. Contrary to the conclusion that LMHS urges should be drawn from the EMS transport logs, the ambulance transport times summarized by LMHS in its application do not demonstrate unreasonable emergency access for residents of Estero/Bonita Springs. The logs do not demonstrate an emergency access problem for the local residents during the season, as contended by LMHS; nor did LMHS offer sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed new hospital would materially improve ambulance transport times. LMHS’s opinion that the ambulance logs show a seasonal emergency access problem for Estero/Bonita Springs residents cannot be credited unless the travel times on the logs reflect patient transports to the nearest hospital, such that establishing a new hospital in Bonita Springs would result in faster ambulance transports for Estero/Bonita Springs residents. Deputy Chief Panem testified that ambulance transport destination is dictated in the first instance by patient choice. In addition, for the “most serious calls,” the destination is dictated by emergency transport guidelines with a matrix identifying the most “appropriate” hospitals to direct patients. For example, as Deputy Chief Panem explained: In the case of a stroke or heart attack, we want them to go to a stroke facility or a heart attack facility[;] or trauma, we have a trauma center in Lee County as well . . . Lee Memorial Hospital downtown is a level II trauma center. (Tr. 378). The emergency transport matrix identifies the hospitals qualified to handle emergency heart attack, stroke, or trauma patients. In addition, the matrix identifies the “most appropriate facility” for emergency pediatrics, obstetrics, pediatric orthopedic emergencies, and other categories involving the “most serious calls.” Of comparable size to the proposed new hospital, 88-bed Lehigh Regional is not identified as an “appropriate facility” to transport patients with any of the serious conditions shown in the matrix. Similar to Lehigh Regional, the slightly smaller proposed new hospital is not expected to be identified as an appropriate facility destination for patients with any of the conditions designated in the Lee County EMS emergency transport matrix. The Lee County EMS transport guidelines clarify that all trauma alert patients “will be” transported to Lee Memorial as the Level II Trauma Center. In addition, the guidelines provide as follows: “Non-trauma alert patients with a high index of suspicion (elderly, etc.) should preferentially be transported to the Trauma Center as a reasonable precaution.” (emphasis added). For the elderly, then, a condition that would not normally be considered one of the most serious cases to be steered to the most appropriate hospital may be reclassified as such, as a reasonable precaution because the patient is elderly. The Lee County EMS transport logs do not reflect the reason for the chosen destination. The patients may have requested transport to distant facilities instead of to the nearest facilities. Patients with the most serious conditions may have accepted the advice of ambulance crews that they should be transported to the “most appropriate facility” with special resources to treat their serious conditions; or those patients may have been unable to express their choice due to the seriousness of their condition, in which case the patients would be taken to the most appropriate facility, bypassing closer facilities. Elderly patients may have been convinced to take the reasonable precaution to go to an appropriate facility even if their condition did not fall into the most serious categories. Since the transport times on the EMS logs do not necessarily reflect transport times to the closest hospital, it is not reasonable to conclude that the transport times would be shorter if there were an even closer hospital, particularly where the closer hospital is not likely to be designated as an appropriate destination in the transport guidelines matrix. The most serious cases, categorized in the EMS transport matrix, are the ones for which minutes matter. For those cases, a new hospital in Estero/Bonita Springs, which has not planned to be a STEMI receiving center, a stroke center, or a trauma center, is not going to enhance access to emergency care, even for the neighborhood residents. The evidence at hearing did not establish that ambulance transport times are excessive or cause an emergency access problem now.12/ In fact, Deputy Chief Panem did not offer the opinion, or offer any evidence to prove, that the drive time for ambulances transporting patients to area hospitals is unreasonable or contrary to any standard for reasonable emergency access. Instead, Lee County EMS recently opposed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the Bonita Springs Fire District to provide emergency ground transportation to hospitals, because Lee County EMS believed then, and believes now, that it is providing efficient and effective emergency transport services to the Bonita Springs area residents. At hearing, LMHS tried a different approach by attempting to prove an emergency access problem during season, not because of the ambulance drive times, but because of delays at the emergency departments themselves after patients are transported there. The new focus at hearing was on EMS “offload” times, described as the time between ambulance arrival at the hospital and the time the ambulance crews hand over responsibility for a patient to the emergency department staff. According to Deputy Chief Panem, Lee County hospitals rarely go on “bypass,” a status that informs EMS providers not to transport patients to a hospital because additional emergency patients cannot be accommodated. No “bypass” evidence was offered, suggesting that “bypass” status is not a problem in Lee County and that Lee County emergency departments are available to EMS providers. Deputy Chief Panem also confirmed that North Naples does not go on bypass. The North Naples emergency department consistently has been available to receive patients transported by Lee County EMS ambulances, during seasonal and off- season months. Offload times are a function of a variety of factors. Reasons for delays in offloading patients can include inadequate capacity or functionality of the emergency department, or inadequate staffing in the emergency department such that there may be empty treatment bays, but the bays cannot be filled with patients because there is no staff to tend to the patients. Individual instances of offload delays can occur when emergency department personnel prioritize incoming cases, and less-emergent cases might have to wait while more-emergent cases are taken first, even if they arrived later. Offload times are also a function of “throughput” issues. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of emergency department patients require admission to the hospital, but there can be delays in the admission process, causing the patient to be held in a treatment bay that could otherwise be filled by the next emergency patient. There can be many reasons for throughput delays, including the lack of an available acute care bed, or inadequate staffing that prevents available acute care beds from being filled. No evidence was offered to prove the actual causes of any offload delays. Moreover, the evidence failed to establish that offload times were unreasonable or excessive. Deputy Chief Panem offered offload time data summaries that reflect very good performance by LMHS hospitals and by North Naples. Deputy Chief Panem understandably advocates the shortest possible offload time, so that Lee County EMS ambulances are back in service more quickly. Lee County EMS persuaded the LMHS emergency departments to agree to a goal for offload times of 30 minutes or less 90 percent of the time, and that is the goal he tracks. Both Lee Memorial and North Naples have consistently met or exceeded that goal in almost every month over the last five years, including during peak seasonal months. Cape Coral and Gulf Coast sometimes fall below the goal in peak seasonal months, but the evidence did not establish offload times that are excessive or unreasonable during peak months. HealthPark is the one LMHS hospital that appears to consistently fall below Lee County EMS’s offload time goal; in peak seasonal months, HealthPark’s offload times were less than 30 minutes in approximately 70 percent of the cases. No evidence was offered to prove the extent of offload delays at HealthPark for the other 30 percent of emergency cases, nor was evidence offered to prove the extent of offload delays at any other hospital. Deputy Chief Panem referred anecdotally to offload times that can sometimes reach as high as two to three hours during season, but he did not provide specifics. Without documentation of the extent and magnitude of offload delays, it is impossible to conclude that they are unreasonable or excessive. There is no persuasive evidence suggesting that this facet of emergency care would be helped by approval of the proposed new hospital, especially given the complicated array of possible reasons for each case in which there was a delayed offload.13/ Staffing/professional coverage issues likely would be exacerbated by approving another hospital venue for LMHS. Pure physical plant issues, such as emergency department capacity and acute care bed availability, might be helped to some degree, at least in theory, by a new hospital, but to a lesser degree than directly addressing any capacity issues at the existing hospitals. For example, HealthPark’s emergency department has served as a combined destination for a wide array of adult and pediatric emergencies. However, HealthPark is about to break ground on a new on-campus children’s hospital with its own dedicated emergency department. There will be substantially expanded capacity both within the new dedicated pediatric emergency department, and in the existing emergency department, where vacated space used for pediatric patients will be freed up for adults. Beyond the emergency departments themselves, there will be substantial additional acute care bed capacity, with space built to accommodate 160 dedicated pediatric beds in the new children’s hospital. The existing hospital will have the ability to add more than the 80 acute care beds proposed for the new hospital. This additional bed capacity could be in place within roughly the same timeframe projected for opening the proposed new hospital. To the extent additional capacity would improve emergency department performance, Cape Coral is completing an expansion project that increases its treatment bays from 24 to 42, and Lee Memorial is adding nine observation beds to its emergency department. No current expansion projects were identified for Gulf Coast, which just began operations in 2009, but LMHS has already invested in design and construction features to enable that facility to expand by an additional 252 beds. In Mr. Kistel’s words, Gulf Coast has a “tremendous platform for growth[.]” (Tr. 259). Mr. Gregg summarized AHCA’s perspective in considering the applicant’s arguments of geographic and emergency access enhancement, as follows: [I]n our view, this community is already well served by existing hospitals, either within the applicant’s system or from the competing Naples system, and we don’t think that the situation would be improved by adding another very small, extremely basic hospital. And to the extent that that would mislead people into thinking that it’s a full-service hospital that handles time-sensitive emergencies in the way that the larger hospitals do, that’s another concern. (Tr. 1425). * * * The fact that this hospital does not plan to offer those most time-sensitive services means that any – on the surface, as I said earlier, the possible improvement in emergency access offered by any new hospital is at least partially negated in this case because it has been proposed as such a basic hospital, when the more sophisticated services are located not far away. (Tr. 1431). Mr. Gregg’s opinion is reasonable and is credited. Economic Access The Estero/Bonita Springs community is a very affluent area, known for its golf courses and gated communities. As a result of the demographics of the proposed hospital’s projected service area, LMHS’s application offers to accept as a CON condition a commitment to provide 10 percent of the total annual patient days to a combination of Medicaid, charity, and self-pay patients. This commitment is less than the 2011-2012 experience for the primary service area, where patient days attributable to residents in these three payer classes was a combined 16.3 percent; and the commitment is less than the 2011- 2012 experience for the total proposed service area, where patient days in these three categories was a combined 14.4 percent. Nonetheless, LMHS’s experts reasonably explained that the commitment was established on the low side, taking into account the uncertainties of changes in the health care environment, to ensure that the commitment could be achieved. In contrast with the 10 percent commitment and the historic level of Medicaid/charity/self-pay patient days in the proposed service area, Lee Memorial historically has provided the highest combined level of Medicaid and charity patient days in district 8. According to LMHS’s financial expert, in 2012, Lee Memorial downtown and HealthPark, combined for reporting purposes under the same license, provided 31.5 percent of their patient days to Medicaid and charity patients--a percentage that would be even higher, it is safe to assume, if patient days in the “self- pay/other” payer category were added. At hearing, Mr. Gregg reasonably expressed concern with LMHS shifting its resources from the low-income downtown area where there is great need for economic access to a very affluent area where comparable levels of service to the medically needy would be impossible to achieve. Mr. Gregg acknowledged that AHCA has approved proposals in the past that help systems with safety-net hospitals achieve balance by moving some of the safety net’s resources to an affluent area. As previously noted, that sort of rationale was at play in the LMHS project to establish HealthPark, and again in the acquisitions of Cape Coral and Gulf Coast. However, LMHS now has three of its four hospitals thriving in relatively affluent areas. To move more LMHS resources from the downtown safety-net hospital to another affluent area would not be a move towards system balance, but rather, system imbalance, and would be contrary to the economic access CON review criteria in statute and rule. Missing Needs Assessment Factor: Medical Treatment Trends The consistent testimony of all witnesses with expertise to address this subject was that the trend in medical treatment continues to be in the direction of outpatient care in lieu of inpatient hospital care. The expected result will be that inpatient hospital usage will narrow to the most highly specialized services provided to patients with more serious conditions requiring more complex, specialized treatments. Mr. Gregg described this trend as follows: “[O]nly those services that are very expensive, operated by very extensive personnel” will be offered to inpatients in the future. (Tr. 1412). A basic acute care hospital without planned specialty or tertiary services is inconsistent with the type of hospital dictated by this medical treatment trend. Mr. Gregg reasonably opined that “the ability of a hospital system to sprinkle about small little satellite facilities is drawing to a close.” (Tr. 1413). Small hospitals will no longer be able to add specialized and tertiary services, because these will be concentrated in fewer hospitals. LMHS’s move to clinical specialization at its hospitals bears this out. Another trend expected to impact services within the timeframe at issue is the development of telemedicine as an alternative to inpatient hospital care. For patients who cannot be treated in an outpatient setting and released, an option will be for patients to recover at home in their own beds, with close monitoring options such as visual monitoring by video linking the patient with medical professionals, and use of devices to constantly measure and report vital signs monitored by a practitioner at a remote location. Telemedicine offers advantages over inpatient hospitalization with regard to infection control and patient comfort, as well as overall health care cost control by reducing the need for capital-intensive traditional bricks-and- mortar hospitals. A medical treatment trend being actively pursued by both LMHS and NCH is for better, more efficient management of inpatient care so as to reduce the average length of patient stays. A ten-year master planning process recently undertaken by LMHS included a goal to further reduce average lengths of stay by 0.65 days by 2021, and thereby reduce the number of hospital beds needed system-wide by 128 beds. LMHS did not address the subject of medical treatment trends as part of its needs assessment. The persuasive evidence demonstrated that medical treatment trends do not support the need for the proposed new facility; consideration of these trends weighs against approval. Competition; Market Conditions The proposed new hospital will not foster competition; it will diminish competition by expanding LMHS’s market dominance of acute care services in Lee County. AHCA voiced its reasonable concerns about Lee Memorial’s “unprecedented” market dominance of acute care services in a county as large as Lee, which recently ranked as the eighth most populous county in Florida. LMHS already provides a majority of hospital care being obtained by residents of the primary service area. LMHS will increase its market share if the proposed new hospital is approved. This increase will come both directly, via basic medical-surgical services provided to patients at the new hospital, and indirectly, via LMHS’s plan for the proposed new hospital to serve as a feeder system to direct patients to other LMHS hospitals for more specialized care.14/ The evidence did not establish that LMHS historically has used its market power as leverage to demand higher charges from private insurers. However, as LMHS’s financial expert acknowledged, the health care environment is undergoing changes, making the past less predictive of the future. The changing environment was cited as the reason for LMHS’s low commitment to Medicaid and charity care for the proposed project. There is evidence of LMHS’s market power in its high operating margin, more than six percent higher than NCH’s operating margin between 2009 and 2012. LMHS’s financial expert’s opinion that total margin should be considered instead of operating margin when looking at market power was not persuasive. Of concern is the market power in the field of hospital operations, making operating margin the appropriate measure. Overall, Mr. Gregg reasonably explained the lack of competitive benefit from the proposed project: I think that this proposal does less for competition than virtually any acute care hospital proposal that we’ve seen. As I said, it led the Agency to somewhat scratch [its] head in disbelief. There is no other situation like it. . . . This is the most basic of satellites. This hospital will be referring patients to the rest of the Lee Memorial system in diverse abundance because they are not going to be able to offer specialized services. And economies of scale are not going to allow it in the future. People will not be able to duplicate the expensive services that hospitals offer. So we do not see this as enhancing competition in any way at all. (Tr. 1416-1417). The proposed hospital’s inclusion of outpatient services, community education, and chronic care management presents an awkward dimension of direct competition with adjacent BCHC, the joint venture between LMHS and NCH. BCHC has been a money-losing proposition in a direct sense, but both systems remain committed to the venture, in part because of the indirect benefit they now share in the form of referrals of patients to both systems’ hospitals. Duplication of BCHC’s services, which are already struggling financially, would not appear to be beneficial competition. While this is not a significant factor, to the extent LMHS makes a point of the non-hospital outpatient services that will be available at the proposed new hospital, it must be noted that that dimension of the project does nothing to enhance beneficial competition. Adverse Impact NCH would suffer a substantial adverse financial impact caused by the establishment of the proposed hospital, if approved. A large part of the adverse financial impact would be attributable to lost patient volume at North Naples, an established hospital which is not well-utilized now, without a new hospital targeting residents of North Naples’ home zip code. The expected adverse financial impact of the proposed new hospital was reasonably estimated to be $6.4 million annually. Just as LMHS cited concerns about the unpredictability of the health care environment as a reason to lower its Medicaid/charity commitment for the proposed project, NCH has concerns with whether the substantial adverse impact from the proposed hospital will do serious harm to NCH’s viability, when added to the uncertain impacts of the Affordable Care Act, sequestration, Medicaid reimbursement, and other changes. LMHS counters with the view that if the proposed hospital is approved, in time population growth will offset the proposed hospital’s adverse impact. While consideration of medical treatment trends may dictate that an increasing amount of future population growth will be treated in settings other than a traditional hospital, Mr. Gregg opined that over time, the area’s population growth will still tend to drive hospital usage up. However, future hospital usage will be by a narrower class of more complex patients. Considering all of the competing factors established in this record, the likely adverse impact that NCH would experience if the proposed hospital is established, though substantial enough to support the standing of Petitioner North Naples, is not viewed as extreme enough to pose a threat to NCH’s viability. Institution/System-Specific Interests LMHS’s proposed condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial downtown is not a factor weighing in favor of approval of its proposed hospital. At hearing, LMHS defended the proposed CON condition as a helpful way to allow LMHS to address facility challenges at Lee Memorial. The evidence showed that to some extent, this issue is overstated in that, by all accounts, Lee Memorial provides excellent, award-winning care that meets all credentialing requirements for full accreditation. The evidence also suggested that to some extent, there are serious system issues facing LMHS that will need to be confronted at some point to answer the unanswered question posed by Mr. Gregg: What will become of Lee Memorial? Recognizing this, LMHS began a ten-year master planning process in 2011, to take a look at LMHS’s four hospitals in the context of the needs of Lee County over a ten-year horizon, and determine how LMHS could meet those needs. A team of outside and in-house experts were involved in the ten-year master planning process. LMHS’s strategic planning team looked at projected volumes and population information for all of Lee County over the next ten years and determined the number of beds needed to address projected needs. Recommendations were then developed regarding how LMHS would meet the needs identified for Lee County through 2021 by rearranging, adding, and subtracting beds among the four existing hospital campuses. A cornerstone of the master plan assessment by numerous outside experts and LMHS experts was that Lee Memorial’s existing physical plant was approaching the end of its useful life. Options considered were: replace the hospital building on the existing campus; downsize the hospital and relocate some of the beds and services to Gulf Coast; and the favored option, discontinue operations of Lee Memorial as an acute care hospital, removing all acute care beds and reestablishing those beds and services primarily at the Gulf Coast campus, with some beds possibly placed at Cape Coral. All of these options addressed the projected needs for Lee County through 2021 within the existing expansion capabilities of Gulf Coast and Cape Coral, and the expansion capabilities that HealthPark will have with the addition of its new on-campus children’s hospital. Somewhat confusingly, the CON application referred several times to LMHS’s “ten-year master plan for our long-term facility needs, which considers the changing geographic population trends of our region, the need for additional capacity during the seasonal months, and facility challenges at Lee Memorial[.]” (LMHS Exh. 3, pp. 12, 57). The implication given by these references was that the new hospital project was being proposed in furtherance of the ten-year master plan, as the product of careful, studied consideration in a long-range planning process to address the future needs of Lee County. To the contrary, although the referenced ten-year master plan process was, indeed, a long- range deliberative planning process to assess and plan for the future needs of Lee County, the ten-year master plan did not contemplate the proposed new hospital as a way to meet the needs in Lee County identified through 2021.15/ The ten-year master planning process was halted because of concerns about the options identified for Lee Memorial. Further investigation was to be undertaken for Lee Memorial and what services needed to be maintained there. No evidence was presented to suggest that this investigation had taken place as of the final hearing. The proposed CON condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial does nothing to address the big picture issues that LMHS faces regarding the Lee Memorial campus. According to different LMHS witnesses, either some or nearly all of those licensed beds are not operational or available to be put in service, so the license is meaningless and delicensing them would accomplish nothing. To the extent any of those beds are operational, delicensing them might cause Lee Memorial to suddenly have throughput problems and drop below the EMS offload time goal, when it has been one of the system’s best performers. The proposed piecemeal dismantling of Lee Memorial, without a plan to address the bigger picture, reasonably causes AHCA great concern. As Mr. Gregg explained, “[I]t raises a fundamental concern for us, in that the area around Lee Memorial, the area of downtown Fort Myers is the lower income area of Lee County. The area around the proposed facility, Estero, Bonita, is one of the upper income areas of Lee County.” (Tr. 1410). The plan to shift resources away from downtown caused Mr. Gregg to pose the unanswered question: “[W]hat is to become of Lee Memorial?” Id. Recognizing the physical plant challenges faced there, nonetheless AHCA was left to ask, “[W]hat about that population and how does [the proposed new hospital] relate? How does this proposed facility fit into the multihospital system that might exist in the future?” (Tr. 1410-1411). These are not only reasonable, unanswered questions, they are the same questions left hanging when LMHS interrupted the ten-year master planning process to react to HMA’s LOI with the CON application at issue here. Balanced Review of Pertinent Criteria In AHCA’s initial review, when it came time to weigh and balance the pertinent criteria, “It was difficult for us to come up with the positive about this proposal.” (Tr. 1432). In this case, AHCA’s initial review assessment was borne out by the evidence at hearing. The undersigned must agree with AHCA that the balance of factors weighs heavily, if not entirely, against approval of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a Final Order denying CON application no. 10185. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Donald Davis is the promoter behind the formation of Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. He is a health care management consultant and a principal of the firm Health Research and Planning Associates, Inc. In his profession he concentrates on the promotion and development of health care facilities. He has engaged previously in the business of forming corporations for the purpose of submitting applications and obtaining Certificates of Need. He also provides consulting services to health service corporations. Neither Davis nor the other principals of the applicant corporation, including his wife, have any experience or expertise in constructing or operating hospitals, and Davis admitted that the sole purpose for forming the entity known as Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. was for the purpose of submitting an application and prosecuting it in order to obtain a Certificate of Need for an acute care hospital for District VIII. Mr. Davis' own company, Health Research and Planning Management Associates, Inc. was paid $15,000 by Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. to develop the Certificate of Need application at issue. Community has "a couple of thousand dollars" in its own bank account. The officers and directors of Health, Research and Planning Management Associates, Inc. are the same as those of Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. On June 15, 1983, after having previously filed a letter of intent, Mr. Davis filed an application for a Certificate of Need for a 152-bed acute care hospital on behalf of Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. Mr. Davis is an officer and director of that corporation. The articles of incorporation for Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. which gave it its de jure status were not signed until July 29, 1983 and were not filed with the Secretary of State until August 19, 1983. Be that as it may, Mr. Davis maintains that the Board of Directors of Community ratified the filing of the application. That authorization found at page 44 of the application, however, refers to the Board of Directors of Community Health Care of Okaloosa/Walton. The resolution was dated June 7, 1983 and Mr. Davis testified that the use of the name Community Health Care of Okaloosa/Walton in the caption of that Board of Director's resolution was a "typographical error." In any event, the applicant corporation had no legal existence at the time the application was filed on June 15, 1983, however, by its later acts in filing and prosecuting the application it implicitly, at least, ratified the action of its promoter, Mr. Davis, in filing the application since the officers and directors consisted of Mr. Davis, his wife and a third individual. Be that as it may, Community negotiated a stock purchase agreement with National Medical Enterprises (NME) on August 15, 1984. Pursuant to this agreement, NME is obligated to purchase all capital stock of Community if a Certificate of Need for 100 beds or more is awarded. In return for the sale of the stock of the applicant corporation to NME, Mr. Davis and the other two board members of Community will receive a total of $600,000 in addition to the $15,000 Mr. Davis has already received for his efforts in preparing and prosecuting the Certificate of Need application. The only asset of Collier is the inchoate Certificate of Need. Upon consummation of the stock purchase agreement, Mr. Davis will resign from the Board of Directors and presumably NME will appoint its own board. Community has given full authority to NME to prosecute the application as it sees fit, including making certain changes NME deemed appropriate to the application, including seeking 150 beds instead of 152 and changing the method and means of financing the project (mostly equity instead of debt). Additional changes in NME's approach to prosecution of the application include the proposed method of recruitment of personnel and management of the hospital. Community has no agreements with any other group, entities or individuals to provide financial, personnel and other resources necessary to construct, manage and operate an acute care hospital and did not demonstrate that it has any such resources in its own right. Mr. Frank Tidikis, Vice-President for Operations for the eastern region for National Medical Enterprises, testified concerning the financial and management resources and staffing arrangement NME proposes for the new hospital should it be authorized. He enumerated many medical specialties that NME intends to place on the staff of the hospital, but neither Community nor NME have done any studies revealing what types of medical specialties are presently available in the Collier County area, how many physicians in those specialties are available and what ratio exists or is appropriate for various types of physicians to the community population. The proposed staffing pattern, sources and method of recruitment was predicated solely on NME's past experience in obtaining hospital staff in other areas of the nation, and not upon any study or other investigation showing the availability of appropriate types of trained staff people in reasonable commuting distances of the proposed hospital, which would be located in northern Collier County. If NME consummates the purchase agreement, the hospital would be locally managed by a board of directors consisting of 51 per cent of the hospital's own medical staff and 49 per cent lay members chosen from the community at large. FINANCING Mr. Michael Gallo was Community/NME's expert in the area of health care finance, being NME's Vice-President for Finance. It was thus established that the total cost of the project, if approved, would be approximately $23,600,000. This amount would be financed by NME which proposes to make a 35 per cent equity contribution in the amount of approximately $8,500,000 and which will finance the balance of the project cost at a rate of approximately 13 per cent interest for 20 years. NME projects that an average daily patient census of 45 would be necessary to "break even." A daily census of 45 would yield 6,425 patient days per year, with the facility projected to break even in its first year of operation. NME projects that by the third year of operation, a return on investment of 10 to 12 per cent would be achieved. NME's projections are based on an assumed average length of stay per patient of 5.6 days. NME allocated two and sone-half per cent of its projected gross revenues for indigent patient care, and four per cent of projected gross revenues allocated to bad debt, that is, uncollectible hospital bills, not necessarily related to indigent patients. The $600,000 which NME must pay Community Hospital of Collier and Mr. Davis in order to acquire the assets of that corporation (i.e. the CON) will be treated as a project cost and will be depreciated as though it were a part of the buildings. Community/NME projects its total revenue per adjusted patient admission to amount to $4,843, with projected total revenue per adjusted patient day at $865. It predicts these figures will increase by about five per cent for successive years as a factor of inflation. The proposed hospital site consists of approximately 12 acres, available at a price of $30,000 to $50,000 per acre. The application itself originally proposed a location in the central or southern portion of Collier County. However, after NME entered into the agreement with the applicant corporation for the stock purchase and became involved in the prosecution of the application, the location was changed. Thus, it was discovered at the outset of the hearing that indeed, the proposed location of Community of Collier's hospital would be in the northern portion of Collier County in close proximity to Lee County. 1/ The proposed $360,000 to $600,000 land cost would of course, be added to the total cost of Community's proposed project. It has not been demonstrated what use would be made of the entire 12 acres, nor that the entire 12 acres is required for the hospital, its grounds, parking and ancillary facilities. STAFFING One of the reputed benefits of Community's proposed project is that it would afford a competitive hospital in the Collier County health services market to counter what Community contends is a virtual monopoly held by Naples Community Hospital, as well as to promote the attraction of more qualified medical staff to that "market". In this context, Community contends that its facility, by being built and operating as an alternative acute care hospital, would attract more physicians to the Collier County area and thus, arguably, render health services more readily available. Community thus decries the supposed "closed staff" plan of Naples, contending that Community offers an "open" staffing plan, which would serve to attract more physicians to the geographical area involved and enhance Community's ability to appropriately staff its hospital. Naples Community Hospital, on the other hand, experiences numerous physicians vacationing in the area requesting staff privileges. Many of these physicians apparently do not have any intention of permanently locating in the Naples/Collier County area, however, and therefore in order to determine which physicians are seriously interested in locating there, Naples has a screening procedure which includes an interview with the Chief of Staff, the Assistant Director for Staff Development, and the chief of the service for which a physician is applying for privileges. This preliminary screening procedure is not tantamount to a closed staffing situation, which only exists where a fixed number of physicians are permitted on a hospital staff, with others waiting until an opening occurs. In the open staff situation, as exists at Naples, no matter how rigorous the screening process, there is not a finite number of staff physicians available. Any physician who qualifies under the hospital bylaws and assures the screening committee of his intention to locate in the area served by the hospital is admitted to the staff. Thus, the staffing pattern for physicians at Naples Community Hospital augurs just as well for the attraction of physicians to the Collier County vicinity as does the staffing method proposed by Community. In that vein Naples has granted privileges to 13 new physicians in the preceding calendar year and had 8 applications pending at the time of hearing. Only one applicant was denied privileges during that year. Additional factors which must be considered in the context of staffing such a hospital concern the ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and appropriate, available resources including health care and management personnel to operate the facility. Aside from demonstrating that NME, through the stock purchase agreement, may obligate itself to provide ample funds and other resources to fund, staff and operate the project, and that it has successfully staffed and operated hospitals in numerous locales, Community did not demonstrate what likely sources would be drawn upon for nurses and other staff members to staff its hospital in order to avoid recruiting most of them from nearby facilities, including Naples Community, which could precipitate a diminution in the quality of health care at these other facilities. In short, other than showing that NME's management has the financial resources and experience to accomplish the staffing and operation of the hospital, there was no demonstration by Community which would establish the availability of sufficient health care personnel to operate and manage its hospital at adequate levels of care. COMPETITION Community contends that its facility should be built in order to foster competition in the provision of health care services in Collier County. It took the position, through its expert witness, Dr. Charles Phelps, that the Naples hospital holds a monopolistic position in Collier County inasmuch as it is the only hospital in the county. It should be pointed out somewhat parenthetically, however, that this "County market area" theme ignores the fact that this application is for an acute care hospital in District VIII, which is not subdivided by rule into County sub-districts for health care planning purposes. Further, Community originally proposed locating its hospital in the central or southerly portion of Collier County, but as of the time of the hearing, proposed to locate its hospital in the northerly portion of Collier County with a service area it itself proposed which will include the southerly portion of Lee County. This area is also within the service areas of Naples Community Hospital, Lee Memorial Hospital, Fort Myers Community Hospital and the soon to be constructed Gulf Coast Osteopathic Acute Care Hospital. Thus, in its attempt to establish Naples Community Hospital as occupying a monopolistic position in the "Collier County health care market", Community did not establish that Collier County either legally or practically is a separate health care market demarcated by the county boundary with Lee and Hendry Counties, such that Naples' status as the sole acute care hospital within the legal boundaries of Collier County is monopolistic. Indeed, it competes for patients with the Lee County hospitals named above in the northern Collier-southern Lee County market area involved. Community attempted to demonstrate a monopolistic situation in favor of Naples Community Hospital by comparing its relative increase in costs per day and costs per patient stay with Fort Myers Community Hospital and Lee Memorial Hospital. Naples Community Hospital did indeed exhibit the largest rate of cost increase in both those categories. Community's expert, Dr. Phelps, opined that lack of competition in the Naples area caused the disparity in rate of increase in costs between Lee County hospitals and the Collier County hospital. Naples called Ed Morton, who was accepted as an expert witness in hospital financial analysis, reimbursement, hospital auditing and accounting, financial feasibility and corporate finance. It was thus established that Naples does not occupy a monopoly position and provides health care at lower costs than would be the case should the Community Hospital facility be constructed. Mr. Morton demonstrated that analyzing total costs per adjusted patient day does not reliably indicate the efficiency of a hospital, since such daily costs fluctuate with the average length of stay. A better indicator for determining hospital efficiency is to analyze total revenue per adjusted admission. A comparison of Lee Memorial, Naples Community Hospital, Fort Myers Community Hospital and NME's six Florida hospitals was employed based on data provided to the hospital cost containment board for the years 1980 through 1983, in order to show which hospital operated more efficiently and tended less toward monopolistic market positions. In making this comparison, Mr. Morton employed the "total revenue per adjusted admission" and "total revenue per adjusted patient day" methods of comparing the hospitals. He used this approach because it reduces to a common denominator the various values and statistics utilized in the hospital cost containment board formulas. It was thus established that Naples has the lowest total revenue per adjusted admission and lowest total revenue per adjusted patient day of all the hospitals depicted in the comparison study (Naples Exhibit 23). Naples total revenue per adjusted admission is $400 to $1,900 less than each of the other hospitals. One reason Naples experiences less total revenue is because its charges are lower, since it employs some 1,600 volunteer workers. If these workers were paid at a minimum wage they would reflect a cost of approximately $600,000 per year. Further, the hospital over the years has obtained large donations of money and labor through funding drives, all of which have enabled it to keep charges down for its patients and to continue to operate certain services at a deficit. For instance, Naples has a discreet pediatric unit, which means a physically separate, self-contained pediatric care unit, with specialized staff, who perform no other services than those they are designated to perform in pediatrics. That unit operates at a deficit repeatedly since 40 per cent of the Naples pediatric patients originate from the Immokalee area, which is characterized by an extremely high percentage of indigent persons. Naples' witness Morton performed a patient origin study which shows that approximately 84 per cent of Naples' patients originate in Collier County, 12 per cent originate in Lee County, particularly southern Lee County, and two per cent originate from unrelated areas. The Naples Community Hospital is located in Naples, approximately in the mid-section of Collier County and a significantly greater distance from the northern Collier/Lee County line than will be the Community facility, if built. Community expects to draw approximately one-half, or six per cent, of the 12 per cent of Naples' patient load which is derived from Lee County. NCH however, at the present time, competes with Fort Myers Community Hospital and Lee Memorial Hospital, in particular, for patients from both southern Lee County and northern Collier County, Community's proposed service area. Thus, NCH does not maintain a monopoly serving Collier County or Community's proposed service area to the exclusion of these other hospitals. The placement of Community's facility at a point much closer to the Lee County border than is Naples' present facility would result in the injection of a fourth or fifth strong competitor into the Collier County-southern Lee County patient origin and health service market area, rather than merely the addition of a second competitor for Naples Community Hospital. ADVERSE COMPETITIVE EFFECTS Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Fort Myers Community Hospital already draw a substantial number of patients from southern Lee County, as well as northern Collier County. Gulf Coast Osteopathic Hospital, after protracted litigation, has secured approval of a Certificate of Need to build an osteopathic acute care hospital in the southerly portion of Lee County. That Final Order authorizes 60 beds. It is fair to assume, inasmuch as these hospitals are already drawing from southerly Lee County, that the capture of the patient market in southern Lee County will be made much more pervasive with the addition of the Gulf Coast Osteopathic acute care facility. That being the case, insofar as the 1989 horizon year is concerned, far less than 12 per cent of the Lee County origin patient days now available to hospitals located in Collier County will actually be available. Community will thus draw even less than its own projected six per cent of its patient days from Lee County. In any event, it is logical to conclude that substantially all the patient days resultantly available to a Collier County situated facility will be derived from Collier County upon the advent of the Gulf Coast Hospital. Thus, any patients drawn to Community, if its facility were built, would be at the direct expense of NCH. That being the case, it is reasonable to conclude that the analyses performed by Mr. Morton, Naples' expert, which reveal that Community Hospital will potentially siphon off as many as 80 patient days per day from Naples Community Hospital, is accurate. If this occurs, it would mean that approximately 29,200 annual patient days would be garnered by Community. Mr. Morton's analysis established that a resultant raising of rates by Naples would have to occur in the amount of $240 per patient day. Failure of Naples to so raise its rates to patients, would cause an annual revenue deficiency of 6.5 million dollars. This increase of $240 per patient day would result in a $1,536 increase in the average charge per adjusted admission, based upon the average length of stay at Naples which is 6.2 days. Even if Community obtained only half its patients from the Naples Community Hospital, (a likely understatement of its patient market impact), the resulting loss to Naples per patient day would be $220 with a concomitant necessary increase, in average patient charges per admission in the amount of $768, in order for NCH to remain financially viable. If Naples were unable to raise its charges to compensate for this loss of patients to the Community facility, then it would have to curtail services currently rendered on a deficit basis, such as its discrete pediatric unit, which experiences a 40 per cent indigent patient utilization. Community's own projections show that it expects to garner 27,790 patient days, which for the above reason, are likely to all be gained at the expense of NCH. This will result in the loss to NCH of at least 76 patient days per day with a resultant revenue shortfall nearly as high as that postulated by Morton as a result of his patient origin study and adverse impact analysis. Thus, in terms of lost patient days and lost revenue, both the figures advanced by Naples and those advanced by Community reveal that a substantial adverse impact will be occasioned to Naples by the installation of Community's hospital, especially in view of its location at approximately the midpoint between the Lee County boundary and NCH's facility in Naples. Naples derives approximately 54 per cent of its gross patient revenues from Medicare reimbursement. Four per cent of its revenues are represented by Medicaid patient reimbursement. Eight to nine per cent of its billings are not collected because of non-reimbursable, indigent patient care and bad debts. Community will obtain from 76 to 80 patient days per day case load now enjoyed by Naples Community Hospital. Community projects that its billable case load will be characterized by four per cent Medicaid reimbursable billings, and six and one- half per cent of its annual case load will be represented by indigent and bad debt uncollectible billings. Forty-six per cent of NCH's indigent and bad debt cases come from the Immokalee area lying east of State Road 887 and north of State Road 846, and the Community Hospital would be built approximately midway between that area and the location of NCH. Therefore, based upon Community's own projection of total billings for 27,790 patient days, or at most, 29,200 days per year, (according to NCH's figures which depict the loss to NCH of 80 patient days instead of 76) it becomes obvious that Community's bad debt, indigent case billings would actually be in the neighborhood of 17 per cent of its total, billable case load, rather than the six and one-half per cent it projects in its application and evidence. This would render the bad debt, indigent patient-based uncollectibles of Community to be on the order of four million dollars per year. Such a high magnitude of bad debt, uncollectible billing experience can reasonably be expected since Community's Hospital would be constructed between the source of most of the indigent bad debt case load and NCH's location. This location is also in the center of the most affluent, rapidly developing residential area of Collier County. Given the fact that Community-NME's proposed location is likely to attract a high indigent, bad debt case load from the economically depressed Immokalee area, approaching the magnitude of 17 per cent of total case load, if a policy of freely accepting indigent, uncollectible cases were followed by Community-NME, but considering also the fact that Community proposes to locate its hospital in the service area it has delineated to include the most concentrated source of more affluent, privately paying patients available to these competing hospitals, it cannot be concluded that Community-NME plans to incur such a high financial risk by free acceptance of indigent, charity cases. Rather it seeks to largely serve the collectible, private-paying patient source of northwestern Collier County, hence its recently altered proposed location. This determination is borne out by the experience of NME's other Florida hospitals, which are characterized by a very low percentage acceptance of indigent, bad debt, patient service. Thus, it is quite likely that NCH would be relegated to continued service of this large number of indigent, nonpaying patients while Community/NME would serve a patient base composed of largely private-paying and Medicare reimbursed patients drawn primarily from NCH, a significant financial detriment to that entity, which at present experiences a rather precarious operating ratio, characterized by, at best, a three per cent profit margin. Such an eventuality would force upon NCH the choice of raising its rates substantially or curtailing services, or both, with the probable alternative of seeking taxpayer subsidization of such an increased charity case load. NCH effectively competes with the pertinent hospitals in Lee County for the same patient base, due to its lower charges, as shown by the fact that Naples has the lowest revenue per adjusted admission and per adjusted patient day of the hospitals in Collier and Lee Counties. Thus, any increase in charges at Naples necessitated by the adverse effect of the installation of Community's hospital would put it at a distinct additional disadvantage in competing with the Lee County hospitals. A similar financial resultant adverse impact would be imposed on Lee Memorial, Fort Myers Community and Gulf Coast in terms of declining utilization and revenues. It is further noteworthy that Community's own projection of annual patient days reveals that it will experience an occupancy rate of approximately 50 per cent. It has not been established how 27 to 29 thousand patient days with a concomitant occupancy rate of only SO to 51 per cent can support a 150-bed free standing, acute care hospital with a full complement of ancillary services, which fact renders the financial feasibility of Community's proposed hospital substantially in doubt. In terms of the relationship of adverse impacts on existing hospitals to the legislative goals of hospital cost and rate containment, it should be pointed out that the current utilization rate of all hospitals in this area District VIII are declining, partly as a result of the impact of the "diagnostic related groups" (DRG) method of reimbursement. The utilization at NCH for the first six months of 1984 has dropped to 62.3 per cent. The utilization rate of the Lee County hospitals has been reduced to approximately 65.4 per cent. The addition of another acute care hospital to this area, which is established to likely experience a utilization of only 50 to 51 per cent itself, would only cause the current low utilization rates to plummet more drastically. This situation would substantially impair the financial viability of all existing hospitals in the relevant area of District VIII, and Community, as well. Thus, if the proposed Community Hospital were added to this area, it would only aggravate the problem the CON approval process is designed to prevent, that of avoiding escalating health care rates and costs, concomitant decline in adequate levels of service and unnecessary duplication of services. GEOGRAPHIC ACCESSIBILITY In support of its assertion that by 1989 a portion of its service area will not be accessible within 30 minutes driving time of an existing hospital, Community adduced the testimony of Mr. Michael Dudek, accepted as an expert traffic engineer. Mr. Dudek plotted the time and distance of travel from NCH, Cape Coral Hospital, Lee Memorial Hospitals Fort Myers Community Hospital, Eastpoint Hospital, the future Gulf Coast Hospital and proposed Lee Memorial 100-bed satellite facility. He employed the "floating car method" in determining travel times from each hospital to points 30 minutes from the hospital. He projected future travel times along the same routes with a view toward growth in traffic volume based upon population growth. Mr. Dudek opined that in 1989 there will be, under average traffic conditions, a portion of northern Collier and southern Lee Counties which will not be within 30 minutes average travel time of any existing hospital. In his own opinion, in peak travel seasons, coextensive with seasonal, winter population peaks in this geographic area, the situation will be aggravated such that the territory where residents are more than 30 minutes driving time from existing hospitals will expand. Mr. Dudek conceded that vehicles on roads adjacent to main artery roads would reach various main arteries at different times, depending on the density of the population in the residential neighborhoods between those main traffic arteries. He did not map his proposed 30-minute driving time contour lines to indicate these variables. Further, he acknowledged that even during the 1989 projected peak traffic season, the geographical triangle in which Community-NME will locate its proposed hospital, was not outside the driving time projected for Naples Community Hospital. He apparently based his conclusions on the premise that road and traffic improvements would not occur so as to significantly compensate for the population and traffic growth posed by various real estate developments of regional impact which have been filed and proposed for north Collier and south Lee Counties. Naples, presented the testimony of Mr. Jack Barr, also accepted as an expert traffic engineer. Mr. Barr used the "average car method" in conducting a travel-time study to determine the points on arterial roads 30-minutes distance from all existing hospitals in Lee and Collier Counties as well as from the proposed Lee Memorial Satellite Hospital. (Naples Exhibit 76). The distances between those points are interpolated and plotted on the basis of estimated average speeds on the non- arterial segments of the roadways that would be traversed by people making their way to the arterial roads. Mr. Barr also surveyed proposed road improvements in the Collier and Lee County areas (Naples Exhibit 7C). He predicated this survey on the most recent Department of Transportation traffic maps. He performed his original field study during a four-week period in December and January, 1982. The travel times for Collier County were then revised and updated on October 24, 1984 with a field survey and for Lee County on August 14 through 23, 1984. Mr. Barr was unable to determine any significant statistical difference between the contours he plotted in his 1982-83 survey and those plotted in the 1984 updated survey. Mr. Barr employed information obtained from the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, the Lee County Planning Department and the Collier County Traffic Planner, as well as information from his own files on proposed residential building projects with which he has been associated professionally or become aware of in the area. It was thus established that that portion of north Collier County and southern Lee County, where most of the proposed residential development will occur, and which is in Community's proposed service area, is currently partially or totally within 30-minutes driving time of three existing and one approved hospital. All the proposed major residential developments in the north Collier/south Lee County area are within 30 minutes travel time of at least one existing hospital and most lie within the 3 minute contour lines for the proposed Lee Memorial Satellite Hospital. The travel time contours will remain substantially unchanged for the next ten years based upon major road improvements planned in the next ten years. Information as to road improvements was obtained from the approved Collier County Comprehensive Plan, from average daily traffic counts on U.S. 41 conducted by the Department of Transportation and Collier County, from the Lee County Transportation and Improvement Program which shows the status of road improvements for 1985 through 1989, and from the Department of Transportation Road Improvement Program extending through the fiscal year 1989 for Lee and Collier Counties. All the roads included in the DOT projection for the next five years are committed and will be built. Although there will not be a decrease in traffic along U.S. 41, rather the increase in traffic that would normally occur on U.S. 41 will be largely offset by traffic shifting over to parallel routes which are to be developed through the road improvement programs established by Mr. Barr. There has been a steady decrease in use of the formerly highly congested U.S. 41 artery because of the development of parallel highways such as Airport Road. Mr. Barr established that the road improvements upon which his opinion is partly based are being implemented, and since most are funded by gasoline tax monies earmarked for that purpose, it is reasonable to assume that the DOT sponsored improvements will continue to be made. Further, although Community sought to show that a portion of the population of its service area is beyond a 30- minute travel time from existing acute care hospitals, it did not demonstrate that that population now or in 1989 amounts to more than 10 per cent of the Collier County population. In his capacity as a traffic-engineer, Mr. Barr has worked in Lee and Collier Counties for approximately seven years, representing public and private clients. He has monitored the implementation of the Collier Comprehensive Plan as it relates to roadways and real estate development and established that road improvements are indeed being implemented. His testimony and opinion, predicated on more accurate surveying techniques, supported by local planning and Department of Transportation documentation, is better corroborated and more competent than that of Mr. Dudek and is accepted. Thus, it has not been shown that the 30 minute travel time points and distances attributable to existing hospitals will recede sufficiently to create the new service area contemplated by Community. EXISTING SERVICE - AVAILABILITY, QUALITY, ADEQUACY OF CARE, ACCESSIBILITY To ALL, INCLUDING INDIGENTS NCH affords adequate availability and access to acute care services for patients in Collier and southern Lee Counties, including indigent patients. Community's proposed facility would not have a level 2 or 3 nursery, and would not have a discreet pediatric unit, both of which Naples has. Thus, access to pediatric, as well as obstetric services, would not be enhanced by the advent of Community's hospital, for indigent or other patients originating in Community's proposed service area. Additionally, inasmuch as NCH's pediatric unit operates at a deficits the addition of such services, even of their limited scope, by Community may, for financial reasons, result in the curtailment of such services, especially for indigent, in view of the considerations expressed above. The physician-director of the Collier County Health Department, Dr. Polkowski was called and accepted as an expert witness on behalf of Naples in the area of public health, for the purpose of discussing the distribution of medically indigent persons and availability of services in Collier County. Her work requires her to routinely review U.S. Bureau of Census data on age and health characteristics of the population of Collier County and to travel throughout the county to acquire knowledge of the health characteristics of the population. It was thus established that the highest concentration of poverty level patients occurs in Census Tracts 112, 113, 114 and 104, with a particularly high concentration in Census Tract 112 which comprises the Immokalee area in northeastern Collier County. A particular health problem in that area is teenage pregnancy, with 90 births to females under 19 years of age in 1983 out of a county-wide statistic for such births of 172. Eleven per cent of the babies born to women under 19 years of age in Collier County are low birth weight babies, which typically necessitate higher levels of neonatal, specialized care because of the increased chances of serious health problems occasioned by low birth weight. There are three recognized levels of care for newborn babies in Florida. Naples Community Hospital has a Level 1 and 2 nursery. Level 1 represents babies who have no exceptional conditions. Level 2 is for those babies with respiratory and other serious problems requiring enhanced levels of care and is characterized by such special equipment as isolettes, intensive care bassinets with respirators, cardiac monitors, apnea monitors, resuscitation and cardiac resuscitation equipment. The staffing level of the Level 2 nursery is at a ratio of one neonatal specialized nurse to three babies rather than the one nurse per six babies of the Level 1 nursery. The Level 2 and 3 babies have serious and frequently chronic health conditions for the short, and sometimes the long-term, often characterized by quite high patient costs. The Immokalee area has the highest poor as well as non white concentration in the bounty. There are approximately 14,000 permanent residents, but during the wintertime the population swells to over 20,000 when predominantly Mexican American migrant farm workers arrive in the area. The poor population has a higher mortality rate for infants and manifests more serious medical problems on a greater per capita basis than does the more affluent population lying to the west and southwest. The Immokalee area population has a high rate of tuberculosis, venereal disease, parasites and hepatitis. The current level of services provided to the indigent population by Naples Community Hospital however, is of a high quality. Richard Akin is the Director of the Collier Health Services, a private, nonprofit primary health care organization which offers primary medical and dental care services to the rural, poor population of northeast Collier County. Most of these patients are migrant farm workers who have absolutely no means of paying their own medical bills. Collier Health Services provides primary medical care at three locations in the county with the largest center being at Immokalee. The Immokalee facility has seven staff positions which include such specialties as pediatrics, family practice, internal medicine and obstetrics. The Immokalee facility records approximately 60-thousand patient visits per year. Seventy-five per cent of these are represented by Mexican- American farm workers who are employed in the area seasonally. Another 10 to 12 per cent per year are Haitian immigrants employed in agriculture. Between 60 and 80 per cent of all patient visits are not paid for by the patient. The Immokalee primary care facility refers 4,000 to 4,500 patients to a hospital annually, with about 12 to 15 such referrals per day. These are for normal, non-emergency care situations. Additionally, between 400 and 450 patients are referred to a hospital for emergency care per year. All the primary care center's emergency and non emergency patients are referred to NCH. Mr. Akin has attempted to refer patients from the Immokalee facility to other area hospitals such as in Lee County, but without success. NCH is located in fairly close proximity to the Immokalee Primary Care Center, and, even though most patients have no means of paying for medical care, NCH treats and admits them without questioning them in advance concerning their ability to pay, insurance, Medicaid and the like. Mr. Akin has previously attempted to refer his indigent patients to the Fort Myers area hospitals with little success in having them admitted. LeHigh Acres Hospital is considerably closer, being 24 miles away, but Mr. Akins has had little success in having the indigent patients he serves admitted there. Instead, he refers to Naples since the patients are treated with the same dignity and decency as paying patients at that hospital. In excess of 50 per cent of the patients he refers from the primary health center to Naples never pay anything for the services received. Approximately 30 per cent of the non-emergency patients referred to Naples annually are pediatric referrals. About 30 per cent of the emergency referrals are also pediatric patients. Four hundred to four-hundred fifty non- emergency patients annually are obstetric patients who come to full term and are delivered. It is unlikely that any of the pediatric patients would be referred to a hospital, such as the proposed Community facility, which does not have a discreet pediatric unit with a specialized staff and equipment, since the primary care center in Immokalee has the capability of treating any overnight, routine pediatric problem itself, and any pediatric patient that cannot be handled on a one-day admission at the facility, can be sent to the discreet, specialized pediatric unit at Naples Community Hospitals which Community of Collier will not offer. The standard procedure at Naples Community Hospital for admitting patients who do not have a private physician or a private physician referral, is nondiscriminatory. That is, in the triage process, when a patient arrives at the emergency room, for instance, only the patient's name, address, age, date of birth and questions eliciting his medical status are asked upon his arrival. Depending on the nature of the injury involved, the on-call medical specialist for that type of injury is then summoned to the emergency room. If it appears necessary to admit the patient to the hospital, the on-call specialist authorizes the admission. When the admission determination is made, there is no information available on the admitting documents and no questions are asked to indicate whether the patient is a paying patient, a nonpaying migrant worker, an insured patient, or a Medicare patient. Naples presently has a labor and delivery area with a birthing room and a three-stage cohort type of nursery. Infants move through three different stages in the nursery depending on age, so as to reduce infections. Seventeen of the 24 beds on the floor are designated as OB beds. Whenever more than 17 patients must use that floor, they are able to expand to gynecological medical surgical beds on the same floor which thus gives a total capacity for OB patients of 24 beds. The OB services as proposed by Community are essentially duplicative of the services in existence at Naples Community Hospital, although with a less intensive level of care for 08 and pediatric patients. Essentially all the other services proposed by Community duplicate these services already available to area residents at NCH and the other pertinent hospitals. Thus, it is apparent that if Community's facility is located where proposed, it will actually serve an area that is more elongated north to south rather than east to west, and will in reality serve the more affluent, private- paying patient origin areas lying in west-central and northwest Collier County. The reason for this is that most of the indigent patient population will bypass Community of Collier's Hospital and go to Naples for the above delineated reasons, and Community would then tend to draw patients from the more populated, wealthier areas on a north-south line from the Naples area up to and across the Lee County line rather than on an east-west axis. The fact that Community/NME would serve primarily privately-paying patients is exemplified by the fact that NME's other Florida hospitals typically have no (or very minimal) Medicaid patient days, such that that parent company's policy is not one of encouraging service to Medicaid or indigent patients. It is thus apparent that with the advent of Community/NME's hospital that there would be created two different patient bases or patient markets, with Naples continuing to serve the vast majority of the indigent, Medicaid, or bad- debt patient base. Community/NME would garner its patient base largely from private-paying, more affluent patients with substantially less bad debt ratio. This would siphon off much of Naples's private paying base, such that, with its already slim or sometimes nonexistent profit margin, its financial viability would become more and more in doubt. This would raise the alternative mentioned above of either raising its rates substantially, causing health care costs for the consuming public to rise significantly, seeking relief from the taxpayers of Collier County, or curtailment of available services to indigents and all other patients, especially GE and pediatrics; possibly even all three cost coverage alternatives. Such an eventuality would ultimately result in a reduction in the quality of health care afforded the patient public. NAPLES AVAILABLE AND PROPOSED SERVICES Mr. Mike Jernigan was tendered by NCH and accepted as an expert in health care planning and hospital financial management. Mr. Jernigan is employed as Director of Planning at Naples and prepared the instant Certificate of Need application seeking 30 beds. Naples has recently added 43 psychiatric beds under previously issued Certificates of Need. The instant application contemplates relocation of the 43 psychiatric beds to the fourth floor of a support building, there creating a discrete psychiatric care unit. Naples amended its request at hearing so as to seek 20 instead of 30 medical/surgical beds to be added to the space to be vacated by the 43 psychiatric beds. No significant construction will be required in the vacated space, rather semiprivate rooms will be converted to private rooms. The 1.7 million dollar project cost is chiefly attributable to the construction of the facility which will house the licensed 43 psychiatric beds. Thus, the reduction in the number of acute care beds sought from 30 to 20 will not significantly alter the 1.7 million dollar project cost. Naturally, the minor project costs attributable to installation of 10 acute care beds in the vacated, former psychiatric bed space will be lessened by an amount attributable to 10 beds. In any event, NCH has been demonstrated to have adequate financial resources to undertake the project outlined in its application and has those funds committed. Naples can add these 20 proposed beds and successfully operate them as a minor addition to its now feasibly operating acute care hospital. Naples has recently opened a free standing, primary care center called North Collier Health Center, in the vicinity of the proposed site of Community/NME's hospital. That facility includes a radiology room, laboratory and emergency medical service station, in addition to offering normal, primary care services. It is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week with a physician, but does not have inpatient beds. A similar primary care center has been constructed on Marco Island. Both of these centers have been added to Naples complement of facilities and services in implementation of a long-range health care expansion plan designed to make Naples' services more accessible and available to the public throughout its Collier County, southern Lee County service area. Given Naples low and sometimes non existent margin of revenue over expenses, the construction of these two facilities was rendered largely financially feasible through the donation of the land for both of them through community fund raising efforts, and the construction of the Marco Island facility was accomplished with entirely donated funds. The EMS substation at the North Collier Primary Care Center is operated and financed by the county, and the sleeping quarters at that sub station and at the Naples main campus facility for EMS personnel are provided free of charge at some financial loss to the hospital. Such an arrangement constitutes good health care planning, even though it results in some financial detriment to Naples, since it makes the emergency medical technicians immediately available to assist emergency patients who are transported to the primary care centers by their own means, and shortens the reaction time for emergency personnel since they are not located at separate locations from the hospital or primary care centers. These arrangements further Naples' long range goal in making its emergency primary care and primary care services more available and accessible to the public in its service area, which goal receives strong public support as evidenced by the large public donations which largely made the installation and operation of these facilities possible. Since Naples is a not-for-profit hospital, any excess of revenue over expenses it experiences is used to acquire new and needed equipment or expand facilities, including facilities and services such as these. The installation of Community/NME's hospital at its proposed locations especially, would duplicate the services offered at North Collier Primary Care Center and to a great extent those offered at the main campus of NCH in Naples. It was established through the testimony of Miles Price, an architect specializing in hospital design, that the construction costs, architectural costs and related inflation factors depicted in Naples' application are reasonable and accurate with regard to the relocation and construction for the psychiatric beds, which are to be moved, and the installation of the 20 acute care beds proposed. Acquisition of equipment necessary for the operation of the 20 proposed beds will be financially assisted by its present shared purchasing arrangements, whereby it is able to obtain resultant discounts in acquisition of the necessary equipment needed for installation and operation of the new beds. BED NEED AND BED ALLOCATION Thomas Porter was tendered and accepted as an expert in health care planning in Florida. Subpart (23) of Rule 10-5.11, F.A.C. is the acute care bed need determination methodology. It is the policy of HRS in accordance with the legal mandate referenced herein to facilitate the use of subpart (23) of the rule by regularly compiling and disseminating district bed need information, including that depicted in Community's Exhibit 16, which includes a memorandum from Phil Rond, the Administrator of the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning of HRS. If the formula at subpart (23) of the above rule is employed using historical utilization data from the years 1981 through 1982, a net bed need of 375 for all of District VIII results and that is the current bed need status of the district advocated by Community. However, as established by the memorandum from Mr. Rond incorporated in Exhibit 16, the most recent utilization data includes that for the year 1983, which is the most recent hospital reporting period envisioned by the formula and above rule. When the 1983 utilization data is added to the 1981-1982 information, a drop in total bed need for District VIII occurs from a figure of 4,147 beds to 3,654 beds. When licensed and approved beds are subtracted from that figure, a minus bed need results and District VIII has an excess of 118 beds. The rule formula at subpart (23)(g) dictates that the three most recent annual hospital licensure reporting periods must be used for the utilization data necessary to operate the need determination formula. 2/ The use of the most recent utilization data, including 1983, for District VIII causes the overall projected occupancy level contemplated in the methodology (at 10.5.11(23)(g)(2)) to fall below 75 per cent, when the bed need calculation is carried out to its conclusion. Given the projected occupancy falling below 75 per cent, the end result is that gross bed need in District VIII is 3,654 beds, rather than 4,147 beds as postulated by Community. Community contends that the 1983 utilization data should not be used since it was not available for Districts I and II and should not be used for any district until it is available and disseminated for all districts 3/ The reason the department promulgated Mr. Rond's special memorandum with regard to the bed need projections for District VIII, was to alert users of that information that in that particular district the drop in the most recent utilization data triggered the rule mechanism of subpart (23)(g)(2) because it revealed that the overall projected occupancy levels would fall below 75 per cent, all of which showed on a district-wide basis an over-bedding of 118 acute care beds. Mr. Larry Bebe is Acting Executive Director and Planner for the District VIII Health Council. He was accepted as an expert witness in health care planning and public health administration. Mr. Bebe considers the local health council plan to be a valuable planning tool for purposes of allocating beds in District VIII on a less than district-wide basis. The plan was adopted in March, 1984, but has not yet been adopted as a rule by HRS. According to the District VIII Health Council Plan, that district is sub-districted by counties, except for Glades and Hendry Counties which are combined in a two-county sub- district. This form of sub-districting has been done for approximately seven years. District VIII is sub-districted on a county basis rather than on other geographical boundaries, because population data, useful in planning allocation of beds, is only available in the form of county-based population projections by age-specific cohorts from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Florida (BEBR). Further, in considering the location of existing hospitals, the greatest proportion of people in the seven county area of District VIII can be located within a reasonable time and access to health care services by allocating the beds on a county sub-district basis. The population data promulgated by the BEBR is employed by HRS, is generally accepted as authoritative in Certificate of Need proceedings, and is herein. It is not available by age-specific cohort in the census tract geographical subdivisions attempted to be used by Community in 4 in delineating its purported service area. 4/ Performance of population based health care planning must be done consistently and future need must be projected based upon preparing utilization rates predicated on the same population geographical area each time. A common geographical basis for allocation of beds, such as counties, is most appropriate since that is the basis on which the most accurate population data is available. The bed allocation methodology used by the local health council to allocate beds by county sub-districts is contained in Naples Exhibit No. 35. Bed allocation on a county sub-district basis is determined by taking the overall bed number available from the state methodology rule formula and breaking it down into county sub-districts according to the District VIII health plan methodology. This methodology takes into account existing hospital utilization and location, changes in population, and projected patient days. All items of information to operate the allocation formula are obtained on a county basis. Under the District VIII health plan methodology, when existing beds are subtracted from needed beds, a projected need for 20 medical/surgical beds in Collier County results with an excess of 41 existing beds in Lee County for the horizon year of 1989. Mr. Porter corroborated Mr. Bebe's testimony and established that, although not adopted by HRS rule, the sub-districting of District VIII by county for health planning purposes conforms with HRS policy in terms of population and geographical criteria and constitutes a reasonable and rational health planning tool. The methodology used by the local health councils to allocate beds to the counties incorporates standard, accepted health planning practices and HRS' policy is not to interfere with that allocation of beds on a sub-district basis, so long as the subdistricting allocation does not exceed the bed need number for the district as a whole. Mr. Porter demonstrated that it is possible under the state Subpart (23) methodology to find no need or excessive beds at a district level, however, by applying the local health council methodology a positive mathematical need might be shown in one or more county sub-districts. Thus, it has been shown that the local health council allocation method which reveals a 20-bed need for Collier County is the result of a rational, standard, accepted health planning practice with regard to determining projected bed need on a less than district- wide basis. However, although that methodology shows a formula-based "need" in Collier County, the above findings reflecting the severely declining utilization experience in Collier County at NCH, together with its already scant operating ratio, when considered with the future effect on its utilization rate caused by the advent of Gulf Coast Hospital, show that no true need for any beds exists. Bed need projections are not the only pivotal considerations in determining entitlement to a CON. Brown and Kendall Lakes Hospital, Inc., Humana, Inc. d/b/a Kendall Community Hospital v. HRS, 4 FALR 2452A, (Final Order entered October 6, 1982).
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application for a Certificate of Need submitted by Community Hospital of Collier, Inc. for 150-beds for northern Collier County be DENIED, and that the application for a Certificate of Need submitted by Naples Community Hospital, Inc. for the addition, as amended, for 20 beds be DENIED, and that, in view of the application involved in Case No. 84-0909 having been withdrawn, that that case be CLOSED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of August, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Background On July 31, 1987, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) published in the Florida Administrative Weekly an announcement of the fixed need pools for the subject batching cycle, which pertained to the planning horizon of July, 1992. According to the notice, the fixed need pool, which was calculated pursuant to Rules 10-5.008(6) and 10-5.011(m), (n), (o), and (q), Florida Administrative Code, was adjusted according to the occupancy rate thresholds as prescribed by said rules. The net adjusted need for short-term psychiatric beds in District 7 was zero. By letter to HRS dated August 12, 1987, the North Brevard County Hospital District, doing business as Jess Parrish Memorial Hospital (Jess Parrish), provided notice of its intent to apply for a certificate of need to convert 16 beds from medical/surgical to psychiatric. By Application for Certificate of Need dated September 14, 1987, Jess Parrish requested that HRS grant a certificate of need for the conversion of 16 medical/surgical beds to 16 adult short-term psychiatric beds at a cost of $46,100. Jess Parrish is a tax-exempt organization whose board of directors have been authorized by law to levy ad valorem taxes in a special tax district in north Brevard County for the support of the hospital. The main hospital is located at 951 North Washington Avenue in Titusville, which is in north Brevard County. Brevard County is located in HRS District 7. By letter to Jess Parrish dated October 5, 1987, HRS requested additional information. By response dated November 9, 1987, Jess Parrish supplied the requested responses to omissions. By letter dated November 18, 1987, Jess Parrish provided additional information desired by HRS. By letter dated December 22, 1987, Wuesthoff Hospital (Wuesthoff) informed HRS that it objected to the above-described application because of absence of need. The letter states that Wuesthoff maintained an occupancy rate of 74% during the past year in its 25 short-term psychiatric beds. Wuesthoff is located in Rockledge, which is in central Brevard County. By letter and State Agency Action Report dated January 25, 1988, HRS informed Jess Parrish of its intent to issue the requested certificate of need for the conversion of the 16 beds. By Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed February 23, 1988, Wuesthoff challenged the intent to award the certificate of need to Jess Parrish and requested a formal hearing. The Application and Approval Process The application for the certificate of need states that Jess Parrish has a total of 210 beds, consisting of 172 medical/surgical beds, 10 obstetric beds, 20 pediatric beds, and 8 intensive care unit beds. The application contains all elements required by law, including a resolution authorizing the application and financial statements. The application and omissions response state that Jess Parrish admitted about 100 psychiatric patients in fiscal year ending 1987. The omissions response adds that Jess Parrish would offer the following programs for its short-term psychiatric patients: continual evaluation, screening, and admissions; individual, family, and group therapy; occupational, recreational, and vocational therapy; psychological and psychiatric testing and evaluation; day hospital and day clinic; family and friends education and support groups; and specialized treatment programs for geriatric psychiatric patients. The omissions response reports that the only facility with adult short-term psychiatric beds within 45 minutes of Jess Parrish is Wuesthoff. The omissions response states that Wuesthoff had experienced the following occupancy rates in its adult short-term psychiatric program: 1984--59%; 1985--66%; 1986-- 7l%; and first three quarters of 1987--71%. The omissions response acknowledges that Jess Parrish and Circles of Care, Inc. (Circles of Care) had jointly prepared the application and that Jess Parrish "plans to employ by contract, Circles of Care, Inc. to operate and manage our unit" if the application is approved. The omissions response includes a letter to HRS dated November 10, 1987, from James B. Whitaker, as president of Circles of Care. The letter describes the 12-year relationship between the two parties, which began when Circles of Care leased its first 12 beds from Jess Parrish between 1974 and 1980. Mr. Whitaker states that the two parties thus "work[ed] out a management agreement; for the new sixteen bed unit that Jess Parrish has requested." In the State Agency Action Report, HRS notes that the project does not conform with Policy 4 of the applicable District 7 Local Health Plan. This policy provides that additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds may be approved when the average annual occupancy rate for all existing facilities in the planning area equals or exceeds the following rates: adult--75% and adolescents/children--70%. HRS reports a similar discrepancy as to the occupancy standard in the State Health Plan, which incorporates at Objective 1.2 the same 70%/75% standards. HRS states in the State Agency Action Report that the 1986 occupancy rates for short-term psychiatric beds, which averaged 69.98% in Brevard County, were 87% at Circles of Care, 70.6% at Wuesthoff, and 14% at a new facility, C. P. C.--Palm Bay. In addition, for the first six months of 1987, the report states that the occupancy rates, which averaged 63.5% in Brevard County, were 76% at Circles of Care, 71.5% at Wuesthoff, and 43% at C. P. C.--Palm Bay. In calculating numeric need under the rule, HRS concludes that there was a net need for a total of 547 beds in the district, consisting of 312 in specialty hospitals and 235 in general hospitals. Addressing the provision of the District 7 Local Health Plan focusing upon need at the county level, HRS finds that there was a net need for a total of 38 beds. Recognizing the "sub- standard utilization" of existing short-term psychiatric beds, HRS states that the application was justified "mainly because of the enhanced access to services that the project would provide." All of the other criteria were fully satisfied with one irrelevant exception, and the State Agency Action Report concludes: Although the district and county utilization of short-term psychiatric beds falls below the 70% [sic) adult standard, this project merits a Certificate of Need because there exists numeric need in the service area and because the project affords greater access and availability to psychiatric services for underserved groups. Need District and State Health Plans Part 3 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan, published by The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., sets forth policies and priorities for inpatient psychiatric services. Policy 1 establishes each of the four counties of District 7 as a subdistrict for purposes of planning inpatient psychiatric services. Policy 3 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan provides a specific methodology to allocate beds when the numeric need rule methodology indicates a need for inpatient psychiatric beds. A minimum of .15 beds per 1000 projected population should be allocated to hospitals holding a general license. A total of .20 beds per 1000 projected population may be located in specialty hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. The population projections are for five years into the future. Policy 4 of the 1985 District 7 Local Health Plan provides that additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds may be approved when the average annual occupancy rates for all existing facilities in the planning area equal or exceed 75% for adult facilities and 70% for adolescents/children facilities. The policy concludes: Additional beds should not be added to the health system' until the existing facilities are operating at acceptable levels of occupancy. Good utilization of existing facilities prior to adding beds aids in cost containment by preventing unnecessary duplication. The 1988 District 7 Local Health Plan, although inapplicable to the subject proceeding, refers to the pending application of Jess Parrish. The plan states: [T]he residents of District 7 appear to be well-served by the existing providers with only a few exceptions. First, residents of north Brevard County (Titusville area) currently have no access to any certified, short-term, inpatient psych services in less than 22 miles. In many driving situations this distance takes longer than 30-45 minutes to traverse. . . . If [the CON that has been tentatively approved] is sustained through litigation and the unit is finally opened availability of these 16 beds should ameliorate, to a large degree, the potential geographic access problems for north Brevard adult/geriatric patients at least. Objective 1.1 of the 1985-1987 State Health Plan states that the ratio of short-term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds to population should not exceed .35 beds to 1000 population. Objective 1.2 states that, through 1987, additional short-term psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the service districts has an average annual occupancy of 75% for existing and approved adult beds and 70% for existing and approved adolescents/children beds. Numeric Need Pursuant to HRS Rules Net Need Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the HRS numeric need methodology. The rule provides that the projected number of beds shall be determined by applying the ratio of .35 beds to 1000 population to the projected population in five years, as estimated by the Executive Office of the Governor. The relevant projected population for District 7 is 1,564,098 persons. Applying the ratio, the gross number of beds needed in District 7 is 547. The total number of existing and approved short-term psychiatric beds in District 7 in 1987 was 410. There is therefore a net need for 137 short-term psychiatric beds in District 7. The relevant projected population for Brevard County is 441,593 persons. Applying the ratio, the gross number of beds needed in Brevard County is 155. The total number of existing and approved short-term psychiatric beds in Brevard County in 1987 was 117. There is therefore a net need for 38 short- term psychiatric beds in Brevard County. A minimum of .15 beds per 1000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license, and .20 beds per 1000 population may be located in specialty hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. The calculations disclose that, for District 7, there is a net need of 73 beds in the former category and 65 beds in the latter category. As to Brevard County, the respective numbers are 41 and 4. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.d., Florida Administrative Code, provides that new facilities for adults must be able to project a 70% occupancy rate for the first year and 80% occupancy rate for the third year. Jess Parrish projects that its short-term psychiatric program will experience a utilization rate of 66% at the end of the first complete year of operation and 82% at the end of the third complete year of operation. These projections are reasonable and substantially conform with the requirements of the rule. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.e., Florida Administrative Code, provides that no additional short-term inpatient beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for the preceding 12 months in a "service district" is at least 75% for all existing adult short-term inpatient psychiatric beds and at least 70% for all adolescents/children short-term inpatient psychiatric beds. HRS considered the 70%/75% occupancy standards in making the July, 1987, announcement of a zero fixed need pool for short-term psychiatric beds in Brevard County. The determination of zero fixed need was a reflection that, although numeric need existed, the occupancy standards had not been satisfied. The incorporation of the occupancy standard into the July, 1987, fixed need calculation represented a deviation from nonrule policy deferring computation of the occupancy levels until the application-review process. The prior announcement of a fixed need pool on February 27, 1987, stated that a number of beds were needed even though the occupancy situation in District 7 was about the same. Subsequent announcements likewise deferred consideration of the occupancy standard. HRS has explicated its nonrule policy of excluding occupancy standards from the calculation of numeric need when publishing fixed need pools. Unlike the relatively simple task of determining the relevant population projection and multiplying it by the proper ratio, application of the occupancy standards, especially at the time in question, required numerous determinations and calculations. By attempting to incorporate the occupancy standards into the calculations upon which the fixed need pool were based, HRS increased the potential for error, which occurred in this case, rather than increased the reliability of the information. Although adequate reason exists for revising the July, 1987, published fixed need pool, Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, prohibits revisions to a fixed need pool based upon a change in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors leading to a different projection of need, if retroactively applied. However, the revision of the July, 1987, fixed need pool does not represent a change in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors leading to a different projection of need, if retroactively applied. The revision to the fixed need pool, which did not represent a change in need methodology or underlying facts, was a result of three legitimate considerations. First, HRS revised the fixed need pool to implement its policy decision to limit the fixed need pool to the numeric need calculation and reserve the calculations of occupancy standards to the application-review process. This consideration does not involve a change in the methodology of determining numeric need or applying occupancy standards. Second, HRS revised the fixed need pool to correct earlier, erroneous calculations. This consideration does not involve a change in the underlying facts, but merely in the computations based upon the same facts. Third, HRS revised the fixed need pool to reflect developing policy in the application of the occupancy standards. HRS decided to apply the more liberal 70% occupancy standard to facilities serving both adults and adolescents/children, exclude from the determination of occupancy levels any facilities serving only age cohorts not served by the applicant, and restrict the 75% occupancy standard to facilities serving adults only. HRS made these changes, which it felt would not harm existing providers, in recognition of the failure of data provided by health-care suppliers to distinguish between adult and adolescents/children admissions and patient days. These considerations approximate a change in methodology, but the revision resulting from such considerations does not violate the rule because HRS already has shown that consideration of the occupancy standards should not take place until after publication of the fixed need pool. In the present case, two facilities in District 7 serve only adolescents/children. These facilities are C. P. C.-- Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks, which is in Orange County. Eliminating their occupancy rates, the district occupancy rate in the year ending June 30, 1987, was 71.9%. Removing the occupancy rate of C. P. C.--Palm Bay from Brevard County, the county occupancy rate during the same period was over 75%. Under the revised policies, Brevard County had a net need of 38 short- term psychiatric beds, applicable occupancy standards in the county and district were satisfied, and the July, 1987, publication of a fixed need pool of zero did not preclude the finding of need under other than "not normal" circumstances. Accessibility Financial Accessibility The primary service area of Jess Parrish is north Brevard County. A higher percentage of the population of this area lives below the poverty level than does the population of any other sub-region of Brevard County. According to the 1980 Census data, the applicable percentages of area residents living below the poverty level were 12.7% in north Brevard County, 10% in central Brevard County, 8.4% in south Brevard County, and 9.6% in Brevard County overall. Partly as a reflection of the different sub-regions and partly as a reflection of the commitment of Jess Parrish to provide access to underserved populations, Jess Parrish provides considerably more services to Medicaid patients than does either of the other major general hospitals in central and south Brevard County. In 1987, 11.5% of the admissions and 8.9% of the patient days at Jess Parrish were Medicaid. The respective numbers are 7% and 6% for Wuesthoff and 5.8% and 3.9% for Holmes Regional Medical Center, which is in Melbourne. A key component of financial accessibility is the effect of the proposed program on Circles of Care. About 55% of the patients of Circles of Care are indigent. Another 17% of its patients earn between the minimum wage and $15,000 annually. Circles of Care has participated in all phases of the application process on behalf of Jess Parrish. The approval of the new program would not have an adverse effect on Circles of Care. To the contrary, the new program at Jess Parrish would provide Circles of Care with more treatment options, especially with respect to indigent patients, whose need for short-term psychiatric services has proven at times difficult to meet. These options are especially valuable at a time when there is no net need in Brevard County for any more short-term psychiatric beds in specialty hospitals, such as Circles of Care. The 52 psychiatric beds licensed to Circles of Care are in two different units contained within a single hospital facility located in Melbourne, which is in south Brevard County. Sheridan Oaks is a 24-bed, private unit, which cannot accept many Baker Act patients without adversely affecting the other patients and the psychiatrists who refer private-pay patients to this unit. The other unit is a public Baker Act receiving facility with 28 beds, for which Circles of Care receives state funds. Unlike Sheridan Oaks, the public receiving facility employs the psychiatrists who work there. About 85-90% of all Baker Act patients in Brevard County come through this public receiving facility, whose occupancy rate was 98% in the year ending June 30, 1987. In addition to these units, Circles of Care operates a mental health outpatient clinic in Titusville, an outpatient/inpatient treatment center in the Rockledge/Cocoa area, numerous social clubs throughout Brevard County for the chronic mentally ill, and numerous public education and awareness programs concerning the treatability of mental illness. Another limitation of being a specialty hospital is that Circles of Care does not qualify for Medicaid reimbursement. Jess Parrish, as a general hospital, qualifies for such reimbursement and projects in its application that 39% of its patient days will be Medicaid and 9% of its patient days will be indigent. Geographic Access Jess Parrish is located at the north end of Brevard County, which runs about 80 miles north-south. Wuesthoff is about 25 miles south of Jess Parrish, and Titusville is about 40 miles north of Melbourne. Intercity north-south traffic uses Interstate 95, which is west of the above-described cities, and U.S. Route 1, which runs through the center of each of these cities. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.g., Florida Administrative Code, provides that short-term inpatient psychiatric services should be located within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90% of the population of the service area. This criterion is presently met without the addition of short-term psychiatric beds at Jess Parrish. This factor is outweighed, however, by another factor in this case. Jess Parrish projects about half of its patients will be indigent or Medicaid, and north Brevard County has a disproportionate share of the county's impoverished residents. Average travel conditions for these persons require public transportation, which, in north Brevard County, is limited to Greyhound/Trailways and local taxi companies. Exclusive of time waiting for the bus and traveling to and from the bus stations, the time for the 25-mile trip between Titusville and Rockledge, of which there are three or four trips daily (excluding off-hour trips), ranges from 25-35 minutes. There is evidence in the record that mentally ill bus passengers do not always make it to their intended destinations by way of intercity buses. The use of available public transportation is therefore problematic, but in any event adds considerable time to the travel time to Wuesthoff for those individuals who do not own a motor vehicle. Effect on Wuesthoff The effect of the conversion of medical/surgical beds to short-term psychiatric beds will have no material effect on Wuesthoff, even though it did reduce the number of short-term psychiatric beds from 30 to 25 in 1986. The occupancy rate for Wuesthoff's short-term psychiatric unit in 1987 was 70.6%. The prime service areas of Wuesthoff and Jess Parrish as to psychiatric admissions do not substantially overlap. Although Jess Parrish may be expected to draw more patients from Wuesthoff's prime service area following commencement of the new operation, many of Jess Parrish's patients will be from the indigent and Medicaid payor classes for which the competition is not intense. The addition of a 16-bed short-term psychiatric unit at Jess Parrish will not materially influence the availability of qualified personnel for Wuesthoff. It appears that Jess Parrish will be able to staff the relatively small 16-bed unit without employing significant numbers of professional employees of Wuesthoff. Some of the relatively few patients whom Wuesthoff can be expected to lose to Jess Parrish involve referrals from Titusville-area physicians, psychiatrists, and psychologists, who will place their patients in the closer facility once it is opened. The negative impact upon Wuesthoff is outweighed in these cases by gains for the patients in continuity of care and community support. Financial Feasibility The short-term financial feasibility is good. Jess Parrish has available to it sufficient funds to undertake the relatively modest capital outlay in constructing the facility, which will consist of about 8000 square feet on an existing floor of the hospital. The long-term financial feasibility is generally good. The financial projections are based on reasonable assumptions, which are largely derived from the actual experience of Circles of Care. The projections accurately estimate revenue sources and expenses. Jess Parrish reasonably projects an adequate supply of patients from a combination of sources, including Circles of Care, existing patients whose diagnoses include psychiatric components, and numerous health-care professionals in north Brevard County. The financial projections contemplate a material contribution by Circles of Care, but project no compensating expenditures. However, this deficiency is largely offset by the likelihood that the financial participation of Circles of Care will be restricted to a share of any excess of revenues over expenses of the new project, possibly excluding reimbursement of fairly minor expenses. If that is the case, the effect of any management agreement would be only to reduce the excess of revenues over expenses enjoyed by Jess Parrish from the operation of the short-term psychiatric unit. The management agreement would not expose Jess Parrish to losses that would not have otherwise existed but for the agreement to make payments to Circles of Care. Under these circumstances, the omission of the information, although material, does not seriously cast into doubt the long-term financial feasibility of the project. Quality of Care The quality of hospital care offered by Jess Parrish is excellent. The quality of the various psychiatric services offered by Circles of Care is also excellent. Both facilities are accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals. The issue in this case involves the quality of care to be expected in the 16-bed short-term psychiatric unit for which Jess Parrish seeks a certificate of need. Circles of Care and Jess Parrish have agreed that Circles of Care will be responsible for recruiting most of the personnel for the new program and will employ the program's medical director, who will be responsible for treatment decisions. In addition, Circles of Care will advise Jess Parrish as to the adoption of policy, which will remain ultimately the responsibility of Jess Parrish. Jess Parrish will employ the head nurse and all other full-time professional staff working in the unit. The tentativeness of the arrangement between Circles of Care and Jess Parrish is partly explained by the desire of both parties to avoid the time and expense of negotiating an agreement in every detail prior to obtaining final approval of the certificate of need. In addition, both organizations were devoting substantial time to the subject litigation, for which Circles of Care was paying a portion of the expenses. In the final analysis, the failure to work out the agreement, although not a positive feature of the application, is not a serious problem for two reasons. First, Circles of Care and Jess Parrish have a long history of mutual cooperation. The relationship began when Jess Parrish leased Circles of Care 16 hospital beds for psychiatric use. Although the arrangement ended several years ago when Circles of Care constructed its Melbourne facility, the two organizations have since cooperated in several less intensive ways. Second, although Circles of Care has superior expertise in the area of mental health, Jess Parrish qualifies by itself to operate the proposed facility. Circles of Care has already provided much of the necessary technical information required for the preparation of budgets and pro formas. Recruiting would probably take somewhat longer without Circles of Care, but the modest construction budget obviously does not involve significant debt service, so that the delay would not be costly. Perhaps the most significant loss from a quality-of-care perspective would be the medical director, whose expertise will be critical. Again, this would be largely a problem of delay only, as Jess Parrish would have to find a replacement, although it appears likely that the director may be Dr. David Greenblum, who is already a member of the active medical staff at Jess Parrish. Given the quality of care provided by Jess Parrish in the past, there is no basis for any concern that, in the unlikely event that the parties fail to negotiate an agreement, Jess Parrish would jeopardize its reputation as a quality 200-bed general hospital in order to commence prematurely a 16-bed short- term psychiatric unit. Other Factors The record does not demonstrate that there are less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to the inpatient services proposed in the subject application. There are no crisis stabilization units or short-term residential treatment programs available in Brevard County. The proposed project will have a measurable impact only upon Circles of Care, whose existing inpatient facilities will be enhanced, and Wuesthoff, whose existing inpatient facilities will not be materially affected. In general, these existing services are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. On the other hand, the beds that Jess Parrish seeks to convert are underutilized in their present designation. The medical/surgical beds at Jess Parrish have been utilized at a rate of less than 60% over the past three years. There are no feasible alternatives to renovation of the existing facilities. The costs and methods of proposed construction are reasonable and appropriate. The approval of the application will foster healthy competition in the area of short-term psychiatric services and promote quality assurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order granting the application of Jess Parrish for a certificate of need to convert 16 medical/surgical beds to 16 short-term adult psychiatric beds. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1220 Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Jess Parrish 1-6 Adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8 Rejected as irrelevant. 9-10 Adopted or adopted in substance. 11 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 12-13 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted to the extent of the finding in the Recommended Order that there likely will be an agreement between Circles of Care and Jess Parrish. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence that such an agreement exists already. Also rejected as unnecessary insofar as the application can stand on its own without the participation of Circles of Care. 15a Adopted or adopted in substance. 15b-15c Rejected as irrelevant. 15d-15g Adopted in substance, although certain proposed facts rejected as subordinate. However, the first sentence of Paragraph 15f is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 15h Rejected as recitation of testimony. 16-18 Adopted or adopted in substance except that all but the last sentence of Paragraph 18g. is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 19 First sentence adopted. 19 (remainder) -22. Rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. Generally adopted, although most of the facts are rejected as subordinate in the overall finding and cumulative. Adopted except that sixth sentence is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and the seventh sentence is rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance. First sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. 28a Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 28b-28d Adopted or adopted in substance. and 31 Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as unnecessary. 32-50 Adopted or adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of HRS 1-11 Adopted or adopted in substance. & 14 Rejected as irrelevant. & 15-16 Adopted. 17 Rejected as unnecessary. 18-74 See rulings on Paragraphs 16-50 in preceding section. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Wuesthoff 1-3 Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and legal argument. 6-10 & 12 Adopted or adopted in substance. 11 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as recitation of testimony and cumulative. Rejected as cumulative except that second sentence is adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as cumulative, subordinate, and legal argument. Rejected as cumulative except that second sentence is adopted. First clause rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Remainder rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as cumulative and subordinate. 20-23 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative. 27-28 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 29 Rejected as legal argument. 30-32 Rejected as irrelevant. 33-41 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. 42 and 51 Rejected as recitation of evidence. 43-45 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 46 Rejected as legal argument. 47-50 and 52-54 Rejected as subordinate. 55 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 56-59 Rejected as irrelevant. 60-66 Rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 67-69 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 70-73 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. 74-78 Adopted. 79 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 80-82 Adopted. 83-85 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 86 Rejected as subordinate and against the greater weight of the evidence. 87-91 Adopted or adopted in substance. 92 Rejected as against the greater weight of he evidence. 93-94 Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. 97-98 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as subordinate. 101-102 Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as partly cumulative and partly legal argument. Rejected as against the greater weight of the 105 evidence Rejected and irrelevant. as against the greater weight of the 106-108 evidence. Rejected as subordinate. 109 110-113 Rejected evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of as subordinate. the 114-117 118-120 Rejected evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of as irrelevant and subordinate. the 121-122 Rejected as subordinate. 123 124-125 First sentence adopted in substance. Remainder rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. 126-129 Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of evidence. the COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cleveland W. David Watkins Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 John Rodriguez 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William B. Wiley Darrell White McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Stephen M. Presnell MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Whether there is need for a new hospital in AHCA Acute Care Subdistrict 5-2 (eastern Pasco County)? If so, whether AHCA should approve either CON 9975 or CON 9977?
Findings Of Fact The Applicants and Background Pasco-Pinellas Pasco-Pinellas, the applicant for CON 9975, is a joint venture between two nonprofit healthcare organizations: University Community Hospital, Inc. (UCH) and Adventist Health System Sunbelt Healthcare Corporation (Adventist). A not-for-profit healthcare system, UCH has served the Tampa Bay area for the last 40 years. It owns and operates two hospitals in Hillsborough County and one in Pinellas County. UCH has approximately $100 million available for capital expenditures to fund the hospital proposed by CON 9975. One of its Hillsborough County facilities, University Community Hospital, is located on Fletcher Avenue in northern Hillsborough County, AHCA Health Planning District VI. Across the street from the main campus of the University of South Florida (USF) and its College of Medicine, University Community Hospital has an agreement with USF for GME. University Community Hospital at present serves the Wesley Chapel area in eastern Pasco County. The other member of the joint venture, Adventist, is a financially successful not-for-profit healthcare organization. It operates 17 hospitals in the state of Florida. As of December 31, 2007, Adventist's cash on hand, including investments, exceeded $3.6 billion and net revenue for 2007 was approximately $368 million. The joint venture between UCH and Adventist was formed to establish a hospital to serve the Wesley Chapel area of Pasco County and to provide other healthcare services in the county. At present, the two members of the joint venture compete to serve the Wesley Chapel area through University Community Hospital and Adventist's Florida Hospital Zephyrhills (FHZ), a 154-bed general acute care hospital in Pasco County. The collaboration of competing hospitals in seeking approval for a new hospital through Florida's CON process is unusual. But by bringing the similar missions, strength in community interests and capable leadership of UCH and Adventist together, the Pasco Pinellas joint venture poses potential healthcare benefits to eastern Pasco County. BayCare The Applicant for CON 9977, BayCare of Southeast Pasco, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation formed to develop the hospital proposed in the application. The sole member of BayCare is BayCare Health System, Inc. ("BayCare System"). BayCare System is the largest full-service community- based health care system in the Tampa Bay area. It operates 9 nonprofit hospitals and 11 ambulatory/outpatient centers in Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties. Initially organized in 1997 under a joint operating agreement between several hospitals, BayCare System's purpose has been to compete effectively in managed care operations in order to reduce the expenses of the individual organizations that are its members. In the first 5 years of operation, BayCare System saved its members a total of $90 million because of the enhanced cost efficiencies it achieved through business function consolidations and group purchasing. Its members are all not-for-profit hospitals. BayCare System's focus is on the treatment of one patient at a time. Its mission is to improve the lives of people in the community it serves, to operate effectively as a group of not-for-profit hospitals, and to provide high quality, compassionate healthcare. BayCare's application, because it provides potential for its proposal with its teaching aspects, draws significant and considerable support from USF, a national research university. USF has a College of Medicine, a College of Nursing, and a College of Public Health, collectively "USF Health." USF Health will collaborate with BayCare in the development of the hospital BayCare proposes, should it be approved and should its teaching functions come to fruition. The Agency The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency that administers the CON program pursuant to Section 408.034, Florida Statutes. It will make the final decisions to approve or deny the two CON applications at issue in this proceeding. Community Community Hospital is a general acute care for profit hospital with 386 beds. It is located within the City of New Port Richey in western Pasco County, Acute Care Subdistrict 5-1. With the exception of neonatal intensive care, open heart surgery and organ transplantation, Community is a full- service community hospital. It provides OB services. It is licensed for 46 adult psychiatric beds. It offers a variety of outpatient services including outpatient surgery, endoscopy, and outpatient procedures and lab testing. Its medical staff consists of approximately 400 physicians. Community serves patients without regard to ability to pay, and does not discriminate in any manner. Accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations, it has received numerous awards and recognition for the quality of its health care services. Community's hospital facility is over 30 years old. Access to the campus from US 19, the closest major thoroughfare approximately 1.5 miles away, is gained via a two-lane street through a residential area. Land-locked but for the two-lane street, the campus is sandwiched between the residences and a high school. There are no medical office buildings ("MOB") owned by Community on the campus; less than 20 acres in size, it is completely built out. Community's Replacement Hospital Community has a replacement hospital facility currently under construction in Acute Care Subdistrict 5-2. Approximately five miles southeast of Community's New Port Richey location, the replacement facility is located at the intersection of Little Road and State Road 54. Expected to open in late 2010 at a cost in excess of $200 million, it is to be known as Medical Center of Trinity ("Trinity"). All current Community services will be offered at Trinity. At the same time, the new hospital will offer many advantages over the old facility. Trinity will initially be five stories in height, with fewer licensed beds, but constructed with the ability to expand. It will offer new medical equipment with the latest technology. Situated on 52 acres, with a new three-story MOB adjacent to the hospital, Trinity has plans to add a second MOB at some time in the future. Unlike existing Community Hospital, Trinity will have all private rooms. Its more efficient layout among service areas will improve efficiencies and patient satisfaction. Trinity's location is more accessible than Community's current location in New Port Richey. It is on State Road 54 (SR 54), a six-lane highway that runs east/west through Pasco County. The road has recently undergone major construction and expansion which was nearly complete at the time of hearing. Suncoast Parkway (a/k/a Veterans Expressway), furthermore, is an expressway toll road system that runs north/south from Hernando County through Pasco County to Tampa airport. From the intersection of Suncoast Parkway and SR 54, it takes approximately seven minutes to reach Trinity. Little Road runs north/south along the Trinity site, and north through Pasco County to Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point ("Bayonet Point"). Community's poor financial performance in recent years is expected to improve after the opening of Trinity. The Proposals Although both applicants propose a new hospital in roughly the same location in Subdistrict 5-2, the two are different both in scope and approach. Pasco-Pinellas' Proposal Pasco-Pinellas proposes to build an 80-bed acute care hospital on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in the area known as Wesley Chapel in eastern Pasco County. If approved and constructed, the hospital will include 36 medical/surgical beds, 8 labor/delivery/recovery/post partum beds, 12 critical care beds, and 24 progressive care beds. The project would involve 184,000 gross square feet of new construction, at a total estimated cost of $121 million. Pasco-Pinellas proposes a typical primary service area (PSA). Five and one-half zip codes comprise the PSA; Pinellas- Pasco reasonably projects 82% of its admissions will come from the PSA. Two and one-half zip codes comprise the secondary service area (SSA). The zip code that is shared by the PSA and the SSA (33559) is split roughly in half between Pasco County and Hillsborough County. The half that is in Pasco County is in Pasco-Pinellas' PSA. The five full zip codes in the PSA are 33541, 33543, 33544, 34639, and 33576. The two full zip codes in the SSA are 33549 and 33647. Pasco-Pinellas' in-migration from outside its proposed service area (the PSA and the SSA) is forecast by Pasco- Pinellas's health planner at 12%. For a community hospital in the Wesley Chapel area without tertiary services, the in- migration percentage projected by Pasco-Pinellas is reasonable. BayCare's Proposal BayCare proposes to establish a general acute care hospital with 130 beds. The application proposes that it be collaboratively developed by BayCare System and USF Health so as to provide teaching functions associated with the USF College of Medicine and other health-related university components of USF Health. Consisting of approximately 476,000 square feet of new construction at an estimated total project cost of approximately $308 million, the hospital will have 92 medical/surgical beds, 24 critical care beds, and 14 post-partum beds. Like Pasco-Pinellas' proposal, BayCare's proposed hospital will be located on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in the Wesley Chapel area of southeastern Pasco County. BayCare's proposed PSA is circular. The center point of the PSA is the proposed BayCare hospital site in the Wesley Chapel area. The circumference is along a series of seven-mile radii so that the diameter of the circular PSA is 14 miles. The seven-mile radius was chosen to approximate a fifteen-minute travel time by automobile from the outer edge of the circular PSA to the hospital site. BayCare's PSA includes some part of seven zip codes. Two are Wesley Chapel zip codes: 33543 and 33544. Two are Lutz area zip codes: 33549 and 33559. Two are Land O'Lakes zip codes: 34639 and 34638, and one is a zip code in Hillsborough County: 33647. Relative to typical PSAs for most proposed hospitals, the PSA proposed by BayCare's application was described at hearing by BayCare's health planner as "small." See Tr. 1855. For calendar years 2013 and 2014, BayCare projects that 19,0976 and 20,008 patient days, respectively, will be generated from within the PSA. These projections constitute a projection of 60% of all patient days projected for the two years, a percentage substantially lower than would be generated from a typical PSA. The remaining 40% of projected patient days is roughly double what would be expected from beyond a PSA under a more typical proposal. The high number of projected patient days for patients originating outside the PSA was explained at hearing by BayCare's health planner. The involvement of the USF Physician's Group and the "teaching" nature of the proposal "pumps up and provides an additive level of in-migration that would not be experienced without the USF combination with BayCare in [the] project." Tr. 1856-7. Pasco County Hospitals There are five hospitals in Pasco County. Two in western Pasco County will continue to remain in Subdistrict 5-1 in the near future: Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, located in northwest Pasco County and Morton Plant North Bay Hospital, located in New Port Richey. Two are in eastern Pasco County, Subdistrict 5-2: Pasco Regional Medical Center in east central Pasco County, and FHZ, located in southeast Pasco. The fifth is Community/Trinity. No Need for Both Hospitals None of the parties contends there is need for both hospitals. Nor would such a contention be reasonable. Indeed, the record does not demonstrate need for both a new 80-bed community hospital as proposed by Pinellas-Pasco and a new 130- bed hospital that BayCare denominates a "teaching" hospital, each with an intended location on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard in the Wesley Chapel area of southeastern Pasco County in Subdistrict 5-2. The question remains: is there a need for one new hospital? If so, which of the two applications, if either, should be approved? Need for a New Hospital; Access Enhancement Among the counties in the Tampa Bay area, Pasco County has been the fastest growing in recent years. From 1990 to 2000, its population grew 22.6%. Three times higher than the state average, this represents tremendous growth for any locale. The Wesley Chapel area of south Pasco County roughly coincides with the PSAs of the two applicants. Dramatic growth over the last 20 years has marked the Wesley Chapel area's transformation from an agricultural area to a suburban community. North of Hillsborough County and its largest city, Tampa, improvements in the transportation network has made south Pasco County and in particular, the Wesley Chapel area, a bedroom community for workers commuting to Tampa. Claritas, a national demographic data service, is a generally accepted population projection source for CON applications. Claritas projects the growth in Pasco County to continue. For example, the projected population for Pasco- Pinellas' proposed PSA, which substantially overlaps with BayCare's proposed PSA, is 113,397 in 2011 and 118,505 in 2012. The Claritas projections are based on the most recent decennial U.S. Census, that is, 2000, and do not take into account data of impending population growth, such as new housing starts and new schools. Claritas, therefore, may understate projections in areas that have experienced more recent, rapid growth. The University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR") also provides reliable population data by county. In the year 2000, the census for the Pasco County population was 344,765. By 2030, that population is projected by BEBR to grow to 526,100 based on low projections, 681,100 based on medium projections, and 876,900 based on high projections. For the high projection rate, this would constitute a 154% increase in population. Even assuming the low growth rate, the population would increase by 53%. According to BEBR data, the county can be expected to grow at a rate of 4.71% per year. Another source of population data relied upon by population experts is Demographics USA. The Demographics USA data shows a substantial growth in population for Pasco County. According to Demographics USA, the population for Pasco County can be expected to grow from 343,795 in the year 2000 to 440,527 in the year 2010 and then to 504,277 by the year 2015. Based on the Demographics USA data, the county can be expected to grow at a rate of 3.11% per year. The Wesley Chapel area is considered to be the area of Pasco County with the most development and development potential now and in the future. Of 175 major projects actively undergoing development in Pasco County, 76 are in the Wesley Chapel area. Between 2010 and 2012, the population in the area is projected to grow by 5,000 persons per year. With the increase in the general population in the area comes an expected increase in the need for schools. Of 37 schools identified by the Pasco County School Board to be built in the near future, 19 are to be located in the Wesley Chapel area. Whether the historic growth rate of the last few decades will continue for sure is an open question with the downturn in the economy and the housing market that commenced in Pasco County in mid-2007. Absent a major recession, however, it is reasonable to expect growth in the Wesley Chapel area to continue even if not at a rate as rapid as in the recent past. Whatever the future holds for Wesley Chapel's growth rate, there is clearly a demand for inpatient general acute care services in the Wesley Chapel area. The total non-tertiary discharges from the Pasco-Pinellas service area was 15,777, excluding newborns, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2006. As a result, AHCA found the existing and growing population in the Wesley Chapel area warranted a new hospital. Along with significant growth in the Wesley Chapel area comes resulting traffic and healthcare and hospital access issues. Drive time analysis shows the average drive time from each of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA six area zip codes to the eight area hospitals in 2007 to be 46.11 minutes. The analysis shows that future drive time is expected to be lengthier, strengthening the need for a hospital in the Wesley Chapel area. In 2012, the average time increase is expected to 57.68 minutes. A Drive Time Study Report prepared by Diaz Pearson & Associates compared drive times to the proposed site for Pasco- Pinellas hospital to eight existing hospitals: UCH, Pasco Regional, FHZ, Tampa General, University Community Hospital on Dale Mabry in Tampa, St. Joseph's North, St. Joseph's in Tampa, and the site for Community's replacement hospital. The study concluded: The results of this travel study demonstrate that the vehicular travel times for access to the proposed PPHCHS Hospital [Pasco- Pinellas' Hospital] are consistently LESS for residents within the six Zip codes of the Primary Service Area for years 2007, 2011, and 2012 than for comparable trips to any of the eight area hospitals for alternate choice. Pasco-Pinellas 36, p. 27. Of particular note are the travel times from each of the six zip codes in Pasco-Pinellas' PSA to UCH, FHZ, and Tampa General. For example, a patient driving from the centroid point in zip code 33559 to UCH would take 24.28 minutes and to FHZ would take 37.97 minutes in 2007. This increases to 29.55 minutes and 50.94 minutes in 2012. Another example, the time it takes a patient to travel from zip code 33541 to Tampa General was 75.51 minutes in 2007. In 2012, the travel time is projected to increase approximately 20 minutes to 95.33 minutes. In contrast, a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area would decrease travel times significantly for patients in the six zip code areas of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA. For example, in 2007, it would only take a zip code 33559 patient 11.41 minutes to reach the proposed site for Pasco-Pinellas. This represents a time savings of 12.87 minutes compared to the average driving time to UCH and 26.56 minutes compared to the average driving time to FHZ. In 2012, the reduction in time to drive to Pasco- Pinellas' proposed hospital site instead of UCH is 18.34 minutes and for FHZ, it is 39.53 minutes. The time savings for patients from the 33541 zip code traveling to Tampa General for non- tertiary services is even greater. Using Pasco-Pinellas' site in the Wesley Chapel area would save the patient 52.67 minutes in 2007 and is projected to save 63.88 minutes in 2012. Anecdotal evidence supports the need for a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area. Dr. Niraj Patel practices obstetrics and gynecology in the Wesley Chapel area. A drive for him in good traffic is typically 20 minutes to UCH (the only hospital at which he practices because the distance between area hospitals is too great). In morning traffic during "rush" periods, the drive can exceed 40 minutes. Caught in such a drive in January of 2008, Dr. Patel missed the delivery of a patient's baby. He was required to appear before the UCH Medical Staff's credentials committee to "explain the situation . . . [because it] was the third or fourth [such] episode." Pasco-Pinellas 47, p. 11. As Dr. Patel explained in a pre- hearing deposition, "it doesn't fare well for me . . . credential and requirement wise but it doesn't fare well for the patient [who] had to be delivered by the nursing staff which [without a physician present] increases patient risk and [the chance] of complication[s]." Id. A new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area will provide residents of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA or the BayCare PSA with shorter travel time to a hospital compared to the time necessary to reach one of the eight existing hospitals in the region. In 2007, residents of the six zip codes in the Pasco-Pinellas' PSA could be expected to access Pasco-Pinellas' proposed hospital in a range of 10.9 to 21.8 minutes. For the year 2012, the time can be reasonably predicted to range from 17 to 31.4 minutes. In comparison the drive times to the eight hospitals in the region for residents of Pasco-Pinellas' PSA are significantly longer. In 2007, it took a resident in zip code 34639 approximately 55 minutes to get to UCH and 73 minutes to get to St. Joseph's Tampa. By 2012, those drive times are reasonably projected to increase to 64 minutes and 83 minutes, respectively. Simply put, travel times are expected to increase as the population increases in coming years. The site of Pasco-Pinellas' hospital is approximately one mile from the site of the proposed BayCare hospital. The travel times suggested for the residents of the Pasco-Pinellas PSA to the proposed Pasco-Pinellas hospital can be expected to be similar to travel times to the proposed BayCare hospital. Given the proximity of the two proposed sites, either will significantly reduce travel time to hospitals for patients in the Wesley Chapel area. The existence in the Wesley Chapel area of a community hospital with an emergency room and primary inpatient services will benefit doctors, patients and their families. Heightened driving concerns among elderly patients and traffic congestion and inadequate roadways that delay Emergency Medical services support the need for a Wesley Chapel area hospital. The support is based not only on 2007 travel times but also on the reasonable expectation that travel time will be greater in the future. Existing hospitals are capable of absorbing the increased need for acute care hospital services that result from the increased growth that is reasonably projected to occur in Subdistrict 5-2. If there is to be a new hospital in the subdistrict, the Wesley Chapel area is the best location for it. A new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area will enhance access to acute care services for residents of Subdistrict 5-2. Preliminary Agency Action; the SAAR The Agency determined that there is a need for a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel Area when it issued its State Agency Action Report on CONs 9975 and 9977. The Agency also determined that between the two applications, Pasco-Pinellas was superior and should therefore be approved over BayCare's. This determination was founded primarily on Pasco-Pinellas' application being more reasonable in terms of size and impacts on existing providers. The Agency maintained at hearing the position it took in it preliminary action memorialized by the SAAR. Jeffrey Gregg, Chief of AHCA's Bureau of Health Facility Regulation received in this proceeding as an expert in health planning and CON Review explained when called to the stand to testify: The proposal by [Pasco-Pinellas] was on the smaller side and gave us more comfort [than BayCare's] . . . [W]hile we . . . agree with these applicants that there is a hospital in the future of [the Wesley Chapel area], we are more comfortable with the conservative approach, the smaller approach [of Pasco- Pinellas], particularly given that should it be necessary in the future, any hospital can add beds, acute care beds, merely by notifying us. And we were more comfortable that [Pasco-Pinellas'] approach would be able to expand access and improve services for people in this area while at the same time minimally impacting all of the competitors. Tr. 1995. As detailed below, AHCA's determination that the Pasco-Pinellas application is superior to BayCare's is supported by the record even if the basis for the determination made on the state of the record is not quite the same as the basis advanced at hearing by AHCA. Size and Cost Pasco-Pinellas proposed hospital involves about 184,000 square feet of new construction at a cost of approximately $121 million dollars. It is much smaller and less costly than BayCare's proposed hospital of 476,000 square feet of new construction for about $308 million. The Pasco-Pinellas proposal is more reasonably sized to meet the needs of the Wesley Chapel area and, in turn, Subdistrict 5-2. The difference in size and cost of the two proposals, however, is a function of a major difference in approach in the applications. Pasco-Pinellas' proposal is for a typical community hospital that would start out with a bed size within a range that includes 80 beds. BayCare, on the other hand, proposes to serve not only the Wesley Chapel area and Subdistrict 5-2, but also a substantial population of patients to be drawn to the subdistrict particularly from Hillsborough County. Patients migrating to the hospital from outside the subdistrict will for the most part be the product of BayCare's affiliation with USF Health and its service to the USF College of Medicine in its proposal denominated in the application as a "teaching hospital." Need for a New Teaching Hospital "Teaching hospital" is a term defined in the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes: "Teaching hospital" means any Florida hospital officially affiliated with an accredited Florida medical school which exhibits activity in the area of graduate medical education as reflected by at least seven different graduate medical education programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education or the Council of Postdoctoral Training of the American Osteopathic Association and the presence of 100 or more full-time equivalent resident physicians. The Director of the Agency for Health Care Administration shall be responsible for determining which hospital meets this definition. § 408.07(45), Fla. Stat. The Agency has not determined that BayCare's proposal meets the statutory definition as directed by the statute for it to qualify as a "teaching hospital." The record indicates that the proposal is not a typical teaching hospital. For example, teaching hospitals in the United States are usually located near indigent populations to achieve the efficiency of training future practitioners with treating people who otherwise could not afford services. BayCare's proposal in a small county with a more affluent population does not serve that purpose. BayCare contends neither that it is a "statutory" teaching hospital nor that it should be determined by the Agency to meet the statutory definition of "teaching hospital." Instead it grounds its case for need in the teaching functions its proposal would fulfill for USF Health and in particular for the GME needs of the students of the USF College of Medicine and the results those teaching functions would produce. Considerable testimony was offered by BayCare at hearing with regard to GME and the needs and aspirations of the USF College of Medicine. The Dean of the College, Stephen K. Klasko, M.D., spiritedly and eloquently related a narrative of need which was supported and amplified by other witnesses including faculty members at the college. There were many elements to the narrative. Highlights include the hybrid nature of the USF College of Medicine, "acting like a research intensive medical school . . . in a community-based body" (tr. 1132)," its on-going successful striving towards becoming an academic center for world class physicians as evidenced by this year's receipt of a research grant from the National Institute for Health, "the largest . . . given to a medical school in the last four or five years," id., and the GME challenges the college faces in the Tampa Bay area such as the recent loss of its anesthesiology residency program. BayCare's opponents point out the many ways in which the proposal is not only not a statutory teaching hospital but does not fit a nationwide model for teaching hospitals. BayCare counters that its model is one of many different models for a teaching facility. Whatever the merits of the various assertions of the parties on the point, USF's need for a teaching facility will be filled at least in part by the BayCare proposal. It is not an exaggeration, moreover, to call USF's need in this regard compelling. USF's institution-specific need, however, does not fall under any of the CON review criteria. See paragraphs 167- 8, below, in the Conclusions of Law. Perhaps not unmindful of the limits of the criteria, BayCare's presented other evidence that flows from the teaching function of the BayCare proposal. Relevant to the general criterion of "need" in subsection (1) of the Statutory CON Review Criteria, the evidence relates to physician shortages. The Physician Shortage There is a shortage of physicians in the district as there is in Pasco County. The problem has statewide dimensions. The state is not doing enough to replace aging doctors in Florida with younger doctors. Nor are aging doctors providing sufficient emergency room call coverage. The physician shortage both in general and in emergency rooms in the state is likely to increase. Residents are more likely to remain and practice in the community in which they train. Residents in the Tampa Bay area, in particular, are more likely to remain in the Tampa Bay area to practice. Even 20 residents per year in training at BayCare's proposed hospital would make a difference in existing physician shortages. Should BayCare's proposed hospital be built and operated as contemplated, the teaching functions that BayCare's application proposes to offer at the hospital would serve as a step, however small, toward meeting Florida's physician shortage as well as the shortage in District V, Pasco County, Subdistrict 5-2 and the Tampa Bay area. Nonetheless, there is a feature of this case that undermines BayCare's claim that the proposal will aid the physician shortage and its denomination in the application of the proposal as a "teaching hospital." The feature is present in the agreement between USF and BayCare (the "BayCare and USF Agreement) to make the BayCare proposed hospital a University Hospital. The BayCare and USF Agreement The BayCare and USF Agreement contains a section devoted to implementation and termination. The following is excerpted from the section's six separately numbered paragraphs: The Parties [the University of South Florida Board of Trustees or USF and BayCare Health System, Inc.] shall negotiate in good faith all other terms and conditions relating to the execution and implementation of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any revisions to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Hospital Corporation, the terms and conditions of the Health Affiliation Agreement, the design and layout of the University Hospital . . . [etc.] and such other documents and instruments as the Parties may find necessary or desirable to implement the terms of this Agreement. In the event the Parties are unable to agree on all such terms and conditions and all such documents required to implement the terms and provisions of this Agreement despite their good faith efforts to do so, either Party shall have the option after a period of at least twenty four months from the Effective Date or six months after the final approval of the Certificate of Need for the University Hospital is received, whichever is longer, to terminate this Agreement on the terms described in this [s]ection . . . . BayCare 2, Appendix C, BayCare and USF Agreement, Section G, p. 8. (Emphasis supplied.) For USF to terminate, the terms include payment to BayCare of $500,000 and agreement that for five years after termination it will not enter into an affiliation or other agreement with any other provider for the establishment of a university hospital in Pasco County. See id. The ability of USF to terminate the agreement is not "at will." It requires good faith efforts to have been made at implementations that fail to work. Furthermore, termination is not without consequences. But the termination provision in the agreement is consistent with the lack of a condition in BayCare's application that the BayCare proposal be a teaching hospital, "one more detail that made [AHCA officials] scratch our heads about the characterization of this hospital as a teaching hospital." Tr. 2011. It is also consistent with USF's support for "legislation that would be statewide that would allow state medical schools at some point, if they chose to, to make it easier . . . to have a hospital or research hospital on campus . . . [of which] USF would be one . . . " Tr. 1190-91. Adverse Impact Providers Outside the District Evidence was produced at hearing about the adverse impact of approval of either of the two applications on providers outside the district. Objections to the evidence were taken under advisement pending consideration of post-hearing memoranda submitted by the parties. Upon consideration of the memoranda, the objections are sustained. See paragraphs 159-66, below, in the Conclusions of Law. Providers Within the District The Pasco-Pinellas proposal will have minimal impact on Community/Trinity Medical Center. Its impact on other hospitals will be minimal with the exception of its two partner hospitals--UCH and FHZ--and of those two, only FHZ is in the District. There will be no adverse impact on Community as a result of the BayCare proposal. There is little patient flow from eastern Pasco to the western Pasco hospitals. Only about 1% of the patients in eastern Pasco travel west for services at Community, Morton Plant or Bayonet Point. It is reasonable to project that there will be no material change in Community's patient draw as a result of the new Trinity Medical Center. The projections by Community's health care and financial experts of patient days that would be lost and adverse financial impact to Community/Trinity should the BayCare proposal be approved were based on faulty assumptions. The majority of the adverse impact from BayCare's proposal, as in the case of Pasco-Pinellas' proposal, will be on UCH and FHZ. Availability of Resources Nursing and Non-Nursing Staff Pasco-Pinellas should be able to recruit and retain nursing and other staff for its hospital based on the Adventist experience at FHZ. The nursing vacancy at FHZ is 1% lower than the vacancy rate reported by the Florida Hospital Association (7.5% and 8.5%, respectively.) The turn-over rate for nurses at FHZ is 12%, significantly lower than the national rate in the 18-19% range. Recruitment of nurses has been successful at FHZ particularly in the last few years. In 2007, FHZ hired 100 nurses and reduced its use of agency nursing staff by roughly 75%. Among its different recruitment tactics have been a foreign nursing program, education and training incentives, scholarships at local colleges and specialty pay programs. Pasco-Pinellas will use many of the same recruiting techniques that have been successful at FHZ. It is reasonably anticipated that the same recruitment practices employed by FHZ will work for Pasco-Pinellas. Many members of the current nursing staff at FHZ, moreover, live in the Wesley Chapel area and have expressed an interest in working at Pasco-Pinellas. Retention programs at FHZ have been aimed at retaining better nurses. These include the magnet concept and a self- governance program with "a unit based council and nursing council so nurses . . . practicing . . . at the bedside have the opportunity to help govern the practice of nursing." Tr. 225-6. Retention programs similar to those used at FHZ will be implemented at Pasco-Pinellas. Schedule 6 in Pasco-Pinellas application reflects anticipated staffing for its new hospital. The staffing model is consistent with staffing at other Adventist facilities, specifically FHZ. The average salaries and wages are based on actual salaries inflated forward to the projected date of opening. The FTEs per adjusted occupied bed are adequate and consistent with the staffing patterns at FHZ. All necessary staffing positions are accounted for and the number of FTEs and salaries are sufficient for the hospital to operate and provide high quality of care. The registered nurse FTEs, as opposed to LPNs and lower-level nursing care, in Schedule 6 offer optimal staffing to provide high quality care and positive patient safety. The nursing salaries are adequate for the time frame in which Pasco-Pinellas will open with a one-time 5% increase and a 4% increase per year from present until opening. Schedule 6 supports the reasonable expectation that Pasco-Pinellas will be able to recruit and hire nursing staff and retain an adequate staff. The proposed staffing pattern in Schedule 6 of the Pasco-Pinellas application, which includes nursing staff, moreover, is reasonable. BayCare has a comprehensive recruitment program for recruiting and retaining nursing personnel as well. The strategies include a partnership with the nursing programs at USF and St. Petersburg College. BayCare System provides additional training to its nurses and with regard to salaries has committed to remaining competitive in the market. BayCare's recruitment and retention initiatives have been successful. In the 2008 year to date at the time of hearing, BayCare System had been able to hire more experienced nurses that it did in 2007 for the same time period. Overall, the BayCare System has a turnover rate of about 15%. The RN vacancy is 10% with a 13% turnover rate. These figures are comparable to state and national figures; in some cases they are lower. With regard to non-nursing employees or team members, BayCare System also had developed recruitment initiatives that are targeted toward those individuals. BayCare System has a positive reputation in the community as a good place to work. As an example, the three St. Joseph's hospitals (St. Joseph', Women's and Children's) and South Florida Baptist received recognition among the "Best Work Places in Health Care" for the years 2005 and 2006. The award recognizes outstanding practices related to employees. BayCare has the ability to recruit and retain the staff necessary to staff the proposed BayCare SE Pasco hospital. The staffing projections in Schedule 6 of BayCare's application, which includes nursing staff, are reasonable. Physician Support Despite the physician shortage, both applicants should be able to adequately staff their hospitals with physicians as shown by the evidence with regard to physician support for the hospitals. Florida Medical Clinic (FMC), a multi-specialty physician group practice with 85 physicians, is the primary physician group that serves the Wesley Chapel area. Thirty percent of its members are family practitioners or specialists in internal medicine. The remainder of the members cover 20 or so specialties that include both secondary and tertiary specialties. FMC has determined that it will support the Pasco- Pinellas proposal through its physicians, admissions and outpatients activity. Ninety percent or more of the clinic's patients use the UCH and FHZ facilities. FMC has a long- standing relationship with the administrators, personnel, and strategic issues of FHZ and UCH and is comfortable developing future plans for a hospital facility in Wesley Chapel with the two organizations FMC is able to meet the needs of the Wesley Chapel community both today and in the future. In addition, there are numerous other individual physicians who practice in the Wesley Chapel area who "predominantly support University Community Medical Center and Florida Hospital in Zephyrhills." Tr. 63. Having relationships with physicians already in a market when a hospital is being developed is advantageous to the new hospital. Among other advantages, it minimizes resources used to recruit and move new physicians into the area. In contrast to support for the Pasco-Pinellas proposal, FMC has not made a commitment to BayCare as to its proposal because of lack of knowledge about the structure of the facility, its strategic plans and whether or not FMC's interests align with the BayCare proposal but it has not foreclosed such a commitment. The USF physicians group will be a source of many of the physicians who will staff the BayCare proposed hospital, a likely reason for FMC's lukewarm to non-existing support for BayCare's proposal. USF emergency physicians will staff the Emergency Department. The BayCare System has approximately 28 physicians with privileges at BayCare System facilities with offices in the Wesley Chapel area. The proposed BayCare hospital will be staffed by recruited physicians and USF faculty physicians. Other physicians from the Wesley Chapel area provided testimony of their support for the BayCare proposal. It is reasonable to anticipate that some local Wesley Chapel area physicians will join the medical staff of the proposed BayCare hospital. Despite the physician shortages in the subdistrict, District V and the Tampa Bay area, both Pasco-Pinellas and BayCare will be able to staff their hospitals adequately with physicians. Charity and Medicaid; Conditions Pasco-Pinellas committed to a number of conditions of its applications. These include a 12.6% commitment to charity and Medicaid; the establishment of funding for a clinic for the underserved, provision of educational programs for the community, and two neonatal transports and funding for local fire and rescue services. BayCare projects a 6.1% level of charity care, 2.4% higher than Pasco-Pinellas' charity care commitment. It projects 10.3% of its Medicaid and Medicaid HMO patients will be attributable to Medicaid and Medicaid HMO patients versus 8.9% at Pasco-Pinellas. BayCare System has a history of providing services to Medicaid and Charity Patients. In 2006, for example, as not- for-profit entities, BayCare System facilities and related entities provided a total community benefit of $135 million in uncompensated care. Approximately 50% was pure charity care. BayCare System facilities currently serve patients from the Wesley Chapel area, including, of course, Medicaid and charity patients. BayCare System facilities provide 57% of the charity care and 31% of the Medicaid in the market. St. Joseph's Children's Hospital and St. Joseph's Women's Hospital operate at approximately 50-to-60% Medicaid and un-reimbursed care. St. Joseph's Hospital currently serves approximately 20% of the patients from the Wesley Chapel area. St. Joseph's, however, provides 36% of the total charity, Medicaid, and Medicaid HMO care rendered to patients who reside in the Wesley Chapel area. Thus, the facilities within the BayCare System have a demonstrated track record of providing care without regard to a patient's resources. In light of the record, it is reasonable to expect BayCare to carry on in the same vein under the BayCare proposal. Utilization Schedule 5 relates to projected utilization after project completion. The projections in the schedule in Pasco- Pinellas' application were developed by looking at service area population, applying a use rate growth and taking a market share by individual zip code. They are based on the expectation that the hospital would be operating at approximately 70% occupancy in its third year of operation, which equates to an average census of approximately 56 patients. The assumptions contained in the schedule are reasonable. The utilization projections in Schedule 5 in Pasco- Pinellas' application are reasonable; they indicate that an 80- bed hospital is appropriate to meet the need for a new hospital in the Wesley Chapel area of the subdistrict. BayCare will able to achieve its projected utilization from its primary service area and from the 40% of its patients it expects to receive by way of in-migration. The population forecast and market share forecast for the primary service area are reasonable. While the support among local physicians is much stronger for the Pasco-Pinellas proposal, it is likely that they will admit patients to the BayCare proposed hospital since it will be in the Wesley Chapel area, the area of the subdistrict that is most suitable for a new hospital. The 40% projected in-migration from outside of the seven mile service area is a reasonable projection. It is reasonable to expect that the bulk of these admissions will come from USF physicians located at the USF north Hillsborough campus. Projected Revenues Schedule 7A governs projected revenues. The payor mix in Schedule 7A of Pasco-Pinellas' application is based on historic admission and patient days by payor class occurring in the proposed Pasco-Pinellas service area based on the most recent available AHCA data. Gross charges and net revenues were developed based on historical data from FHZ as reported to AHCA. These figures were inflated forward using a net increase over all in revenue payments of approximately 3%. The projected revenues including net revenues in Schedule 7A of Pasco- Pinellas' application are reasonable and consistent with the marketplace. The payor mix in BayCare's Schedule 7A was based on an analysis of patient discharge data from the proposed primary service area plus an analysis of the experience of other BayCare System facilities in the same market. It is a reasonable payor mix. It allows for consideration of the experience of BayCare System, including the high level of charity care and Medicaid and Medicaid HMO services and at the same time reflects that the Wesley Chapel area is more affluent and younger than other areas of Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. BayCare's revenue assumptions were based on an analysis of gross and net revenue per patient day from another BayCare System facility, South Florida Baptist. Financial class specific projected patient days were applied to derive a gross and net revenue number for each of the three pro forma years for the proposed project denominated by Schedule 7A as "Projected Operating Year 1, 2 and 3" and ending "12/31/11, 12/31/12 and 12/31/13" respectively as indicated by BayCare in the application. See BayCare 2, pp. 133-135. The 2006 South Florida Baptist gross and net revenue per patient day were trended forward for each of the three projected operating years to reach the projected revenue figures in Schedule 7A. The projected revenues in Schedule 7A of the BayCare application are reasonable. Projected Income and Expenses Schedule 8A in a CON application contains projected income and expenses for the proposal. Pasco-Pinellas' application used a methodology in Schedule 8 that its expert had used in other CON cases. The methodology is consistent with methodologies of other health care experts and has been accepted in recommended and final orders in CON cases. The projections in Schedule 8 of Pasco-Pinellas' application are appropriate and reasonable. BayCare's methodology used to project income and expenses in Schedule 8A is also appropriate and reasonable. BayCare's healthcare finance expert asked BayCare financial analysts to look at his initial projections. They recommended that expenses be increased in physical therapy, radiology lab and pharmacy and that expense be reduced in plant operations. The recommendations were accepted; the projections were adjusted. Medicare GME reimbursement in year 3 of operations was assumed to be $1.7 million. If no addition Medicare GME reimbursement were received, BayCare's proposal would still show a profit of $2.8 million by year 3. It is virtually certain, moreover, that some portion of the $1.7 million included in calculation of BayCare's income projections will be realized. However valid criticism of the inclusion of the $1.7 million, BayCare's proposal remains financially feasible in the long- term. Financial Feasibility Pasco-Pinellas proved the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of its proposal. The schedules in its application related to financial feasibility used reasonable methodologies that yielded reasonable projections. Analysis of capital costs and funding is contained in Schedules 1 through 3. Schedule 1 presents an accurate summation of total project cost. That figure, $121 million, is a reasonable and typical cost for a new 80-bed community hospital. The $149 million on Schedule 2 reflects an accurate summation of anticipated capital costs, including the hospital project and necessary capital expenditures for the first tow or three years of operation. Schedule 3 set forth the sources of funding, a combination of equity and debt financing, discussed below. Both UCH and Adventist are financially successful systems. They will have not difficulty funding the Pasco- Pinellas proposal. As of December 31, 2007, Adventist's net revenue was approximately $368 million. About $100 million in funds were available to UCH at the time of hearing to contribute to development of the project. Due to the financial strength of its members, Pasco- Pinellas will easily be able to fund the project through a combination of equity and debt. The equity, $45 million, will be provided equally by Adventist and UCH, $22.5 million each. The remaining $76 million will be financed through tax-free bonds issued by Ziegler Securities. The project is immediately financially feasible. The Pasco-Pinellas project is also financially feasible in the long-term. Schedule 8 in the application, year 3, shows the project will generate a return of approximately $5.3 million in revenue over expenses, an amount that "more than meet[s] the test for financial feasibility in the long-term." Id. Based on the sources of BayCare System, BayCare has access to the financial resources to implement its proposed hospital. Funding for the hospital will come from BayCare System on the basis of 50% debt and 50% equity investment. As of early 2008, BayCare System had approximately $1.2 billion in unrestricted cash on hand. BayCare System's financial strength will allow BayCare to obtain the financing it needs for the project. Schedule 3 of the BayCare application sets forth an accurate and reasonable statement of the sources of funds necessary to develop the project. The immediate financial feasibility of BayCare's proposal is demonstrated by the evidence presented by BayCare. By year three of the pro forma, the BayCare proposal is reasonably projected to generate a net income over expenses in the amount of $4,498,637. BayCare demonstrated that the proposal's long-term financial feasibility. Costs and Construction Methods The costs and methods of the proposed construction of the Pasco-Pinellas project are reasonable. The facility is adequately sized and programmed for the services included in the Pasco-Pinellas application. All of the departments, including central storage, fall within an appropriate benchmark range for community hospitals. The 2,300 square feet per bed is reasonable as are the construction costs when compared to similar community hospitals. The proposed Pasco-Pinellas facility meets the codes for all of the services included in the application. The design of the Pasco-Pinellas facility enable expansion. The designed expansion capabilities are reasonable, logical and appropriate to meet the needs of the Wesley Chapel community. The drawings contained in the CON application show an efficient community hospital. The departments allow for efficient intra-department circulation and department-to- department circulation. There are adequate separation of public and staff flow corridors. All of the areas and departments as shown in the Pasco-Pinellas plans are code compliant. The layout of the patient rooms is consistent with industry standards for the design of single patient rooms. The number and size of the operating rooms are adequate and appropriate for an 80-bed community hospital not offering tertiary services. The emergency department, including the trauma room, complies with code and its layout is adequate and appropriate for an 80-bed hospital. The ambulance entrance in relation to the trauma bay allows for efficient location of patients based on acuity level. The number of treatment beds, treatment bays, including observation areas, provide adequate emergency department capacity. The Schedule 1 costs set forth in the BayCare application are reasonable. These costs include projected costs associated with necessary medical equipment. The medical equipment costs set forth in Schedule 1 are reasonable and BayCare has properly accounted for the items and costs of equipment necessary to operate the hospital. The Schedule 9 construction costs of approximately $180 million are reasonable as are the construction costs per square foot ($347 versus $325 for Pasco-Pinellas). Contingencies and escalation factors have been built into the projected costs. Facilities, Sites, Related Costs At the time the UCH and Adventist joint venture was formed, UCH had a parcel of land under contract located on State Road 54 across from the Saddlebrook Resort (the "UCH Parcel"). When it filed its application, Pasco-Pinellas hoped the UCH Parcel would serve as the site of its hospital. In fact, Pasco- Pinellas touted the location of the parcel for meeting the need of the growing population in Pasco County when it represented in the application that the UCH Parcel is the center point of the Wesley Chapel area. Close to Interstate 75, the UCH Parcel is a good location for a hospital. Pasco-Pinellas' aspiration for the use of the parcel was defeated, however, when the Pasco County denied a request to re-zone the UCH Parcel for use as a hospital. After the inability to have the UCH Parcel re-zoned, Pasco-Pinellas changed the site for the hospital to a parcel owned by FHZ (the "Pasco-Pinellas Site"). Located on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, a major north-south corridor in the Wesley Chapel area, the site is 51.5 acres. The Pasco-Pinellas Site had been purchased by FHZ in 2001 with the intention of using it for a hospital. Subject to a height variance to allow a seven-story building, the site is zoned for special use as a hospital and related medical uses. The site has good visibility and access from Bruce B. Downs Boulevard as evidenced by its compliance with the State Road 581 (Bruce B. Downs Boulevard) access management plan. It meets other regulatory requirements such as the minimum spacing criteria for Pasco County. The Pasco-Pinellas Site is governed by a development order associated with the Wiregrass Ranch Development of Regional Impact (the "Wiregrass DRI DO"). The Wiregrass DRI DO "indicates that the phasing schedule assumed 100 hospital beds would be developed within the building phase." Tr. 597. As explained at hearing by Lara Daly, Pasco-Pinellas' expert in civil engineering and property site development, there are other aspects of the Wiregrass DRI DO, "like trade-off matrices" and "entitlement advancements" that indicate "entitlements are not limited on a parcel-by-parcel basis." Tr. 598. The assumption, therefore, does not necessarily restrict the number of hospital beds on the Pasco-Pinellas Site; rather it allows impacts associated with 100 hospital beds. The number of allowable beds may be increased following action taken under other provisions of the Wiregrass DRI DO. A significant portion of the Pasco-Pinellas Site is wetlands: some of low quality, some of high quality. The higher quality wetlands, referred to in the record as "a high quality category 1 wetland as defined by Pasco County," tr. 552, (the "Category 1 Wetland") are on the north and east perimeter of the site. The project is designed so as to have no impacts on the Category 1 Wetland. The only potential impact to these high quality wetlands is if there were a county-mandated road to be built in their vicinity. The lesser quality wetlands located in the interior of the site are herbaceous in nature or an open water feature that is "an older borrow pit that naturalized over time." Tr. 552-53. These lower quality wetlands constitute roughly 11.5 acres of the site. They will be impacted by the project but it is reasonable to expect that the impacts will be permitted. As Ms. Daly put it at hearing, "[a]fter reviewing, running stormwater models, looking at the proposed wetland impacts, coming up with appropriate mitigation ratios based on our experience elsewhere on the Wiregrass site, the site will accommodate all the necessary wetland and floodplain historic basin compensation . . . ." Tr. 550. The costs contained in Schedule 1 of the application were arrived assuming the use of the UCH Parcel as the site for the Pasco-Pinellas project. The Pasco-Pinellas Site requires expenditures for site preparation and other expenditures, such as wetland mitigation, related to the site that were not required had the UCH Parcel been used. For example, three potential foundation systems have been suggested for the hospital because of the wetland and subsurface conditions on the Pasco-Pinellas Site had the UCH Parcel been the site. Using the most expensive of the three, however, would not cause Pasco- Pinellas to exceed the construction costs contained in Schedule 1 of the CON Application. The land acquisition costs were reasonably projected to be less for the Pinellas-Pasco Site than for the UCH Parcel as reflected in the application. All told, the estimated project cost using the Pasco-Pinellas site was not materially different from the cost projected in the application and presented the possibility of being less than the $121 million reflected in the application. Likewise, the equipment cost figure shown in Schedule 1 of the Pasco-Pinellas application is reasonable and achievable. The total of the costs for the project sited at the Pasco-Pinellas Site, despite the change of site that occurred after the filing of the application, should not exceed the total of the costs listed in the Pasco-Pinellas application. The preponderance of the evidence is that the Pasco- Pinellas Site should ultimately qualify as an appropriate, developable site for the Pasco-Pinellas project. The BayCare site, north of Highway 56 and bordering I-75, (the "BayCare Site") includes two parcels of 54 and 17 acres. The 54 contiguous acres will be used for the hospital, outpatient services, and a planned medical office building. The 17 acres will be used for research space, physician office space, and academic training space necessary for the research and education function at the project. BayCare has the appropriate zoning and approvals necessary to develop the hospital. The hospital will have all private beds. It will be fully digital and will rely on electronic medical records. The BayCare Site is well suited for construction of the hospital and related buildings. The available footprint and design of the hospital, which includes shelled-in space, will readily allow for future expansion of the hospital up to 300 beds. Design of the BayCare facility is based on principles of family-centered care, flexibility to allow for change and future growth, efficiency, a quality of environment for teaching, a sustainable, green building, and patient safety. A "health building" with improved environmental quality and energy efficiency, the facility will seek LEED certification given to facilities constructed to have minimal adverse environmental impact. In keeping with the teaching function intended by the application, the facility's design includes additional work space, reading areas, sleep areas and conference rooms to facilitate teaching. Overall, the BayCare facility is twice as large as the Pasco-Pinellas facility. Size has its advantages. For example, it allows for larger treatment patient areas. But the facility is much more expensive to build. It is reasonably projected to cost more than $180 million above the costs associated with the Pasco-Pinellas facility which is more than twice as much. The high expense associated with the BayCare facility is shown by its cost per bed: in excess of $2 million-- much more than the cost per bed of the Pasco-Pinellas facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration approve CON 9975, Pasco-Pinellas' application for a new hospital in AHCA Subdistrict 5-2, and deny CON 9977, BayCare's application for a new hospital in the same subdistrict. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karin M. Byrne, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3 Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone, Koda & Frook, P.A. 1001 Avenida Del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
The Issue Whether the certificate of need (CON) applications filed by New Port Richey Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Community Hospital of New Port Richey (Community Hospital) (CON No. 9539), and Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc., d/b/a North Bay Hospital (North Bay) (CON No. 9538), each seeking to replace and relocate their respective general acute care hospital, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Parties AHCA AHCA is the single state agency responsible for the administration of the CON program in Florida pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes (2000). The agency separately reviewed and preliminarily approved both applications. Community Hospital Community Hospital is a 300,000 square feet, accredited hospital with 345 licensed acute care beds and 56 licensed adult psychiatric beds, located in southern New Port Richey, Florida, within Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital is seeking to construct a replacement facility approximately five miles to the southeast within a rapidly developing suburb known as "Trinity." Community Hospital currently provides a wide array of comprehensive inpatient and outpatient services and is the only provider of obstetrical and adult psychiatric services in Sub-District 5-1. It is the largest provider of emergency services in Pasco County with approximately 35,000 visits annually. It is also the largest provider of Medicaid and indigent patient days in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital was originally built in 1969 and is an aging facility. Although it has been renovated over time, the hospital is in poor condition. Community Hospital's average daily census is below 50 percent. North Bay North Bay is a 122-bed facility containing 102 licensed acute care beds and 20 licensed comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds, located approximately one mile north of Community Hospital in Sub-District 5-1. It serves a large elderly population and does not provide pediatric or obstetrical care. North Bay is also an aging facility and proposes to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Notably, however, North Bay has spent approximately 12 million dollars over the past three years for physical improvements and is in reasonable physical condition. Helen Ellis Helen Ellis is an accredited hospital with 150 licensed acute care beds and 18 licensed skilled nursing unit beds. It is located in northern Pinellas County, approximately eight miles south of Community Hospital and nine miles south of North Bay. Helen Ellis provides a full array of acute care services including obstetrics and cardiac catheterization. Its daily census average has fluctuated over the years but is approximately 45 percent. Mease Mease operates two acute care hospitals in Pinellas County including Mease Dunedin Hospital, located approximately 18 to 20 miles south of the applicants and Mease Countryside Hospital, located approximately 16 to 18 miles south of Community and North Bay. Each hospital operates 189 licensed beds. The Mease hospitals are located in the adjacent acute care sub-district but compete with the applicants. The Health Planning District AHCA's Health Planning District 5 consists of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. U.S. Highway 41 runs north and south through the District and splits Pasco County into Sub- District 5-1 and Sub-District 5-2. Sub-District 5-1, where Community Hospital and North Bay are located, extends from U.S. 41 west to the Gulf Coast. Sub-District 5-2 extends from U.S. 41 to the eastern edge of Pasco County. Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida and steadily grows at 5.52 percent per year. On the other hand, its neighbor to the north, Pasco County, has been experiencing over 15 percent annual growth in population. The evidence demonstrates that the area known as Trinity, located four to five miles southeast of New Port Richey, is largely responsible for the growth. With its large, single- owner land tracts, Trinity has become the area's fuel for growth, while New Port Richey, the older coastal anchor which houses the applicants' facilities, remains static. In addition to the available land in Trinity, roadway development in the southwest section of Pasco County is further fueling growth. For example, the Suncoast Highway, a major highway, was recently extended north from Hillsborough County through Sub-District 5-1, west of U.S. 41. It intersects with several large east-west thoroughfares including State Road 54, providing easy highway access to the Tampa area. The General Proposals Community Hospital's Proposal Community Hospital's CON application proposes to replace its existing, 401-bed hospital with a 376-bed state- of-the-art facility and relocate it approximately five miles to the southeast in the Trinity area. Community Hospital intends to construct a large medical office adjacent to its new facility and provide all of its current services including obstetrical care. It does not intend to change its primary service area. North Bay's Proposal North Bay's CON application proposes to replace its existing hospital with a 122-bed state-of-the-art facility and also plans to relocate it approximately eight miles to the southeast in the Trinity area of southwestern Pasco County. North Bay intends to provide the same array of services it currently offers its patients and will not provide pediatric and obstetrical care in the proposed facility. The proposed relocation site is adjacent to the Trinity Outpatient Center which is owned by North Bay's parent company, Morton Plant. The Outpatient Center offers a full range of diagnostic imaging services including nuclear medicine, cardiac nuclear stress testing, bone density scanning, CAT scanning, mammography, ultrasound, as well as many others. It also offers general and specialty ambulatory surgical services including urology; ear, nose and throat; ophthalmology; gastroenterology; endoscopy; and pain management. Approximately 14 physician offices are currently located at the Trinity Outpatient Center. The Condition of Community Hospital Facility Community Hospital's core facilities were constructed between 1969 and 1971. Additions to the hospital were made in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1992, and 1999. With an area of approximately 294,000 square feet and 401 licensed beds, or 733 square feet per bed, Community Hospital's gross area-to-bed ratio is approximately half of current hospital planning standards of 1,600 square feet per bed. With the exception of the "E" wing which was completed in 1999, all of the clinical and support departments are undersized. Medical-Surgical Beds And Intensive Care Units Community Hospital's "D" wing, constructed in 1975, is made up of two general medical-surgical unit floors which are grossly undersized. Each floor operates 47 general medical-surgical beds, 24 of which are in three-bed wards and 23 in semi-private rooms. None of the patient rooms in the "D" wing have showers or tubs so the patients bathe in a single facility located at the center of the wing on each floor. Community Hospital's "A" wing, added in 1973, is situated at the west end of the second floor and is also undersized. It too has a combination of semi-private rooms and three-bed wards without showers or tubs. Community Hospital's "F" wing, added in 1979, includes a medical-surgical unit on the second and third floor, each with semi-private and private rooms. The second floor unit is centrally located between a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit and the Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) which creates security and privacy issues. The third floor unit is adjacent to the Medical Intensive Care Unit (MICU) which must be accessed through the medical-surgical unit. Neither intensive care unit (ICU) possesses an isolation area. Although the three-bed wards are generally restricted to in-season use, and not always full, they pose significant privacy, security, safety, and health concerns. They fail to meet minimum space requirements and are a serious health risk. The evidence demonstrates that reconfiguring the wards would be extremely costly and impractical due to code compliance issues. The wards hinder the hospital's acute care utilization, and impair its ability to effectively compete with other hospitals. Surgical Department and Recovery Community Hospital's surgical department is separated into two locations including the main surgical suite on the second floor and the Endoscopy/Pain Management unit located on the first floor of "C" wing. Consequently, the department cannot share support staff and space such as preparation and recovery. The main surgical suite, adjacent recovery room, and central sterile processing are 25 years old. This unit's operating rooms, cystoscopy rooms, storage areas, work- stations, central sterile, and recovery rooms are undersized and antiquated. The 12-bay Recovery Room has no patient toilet and is lacking storage. The soiled utility room is deficient. In addition, the patient bays are extremely narrow and separated by curtains. There is no direct connection to the sterile corridor, and staff must break the sterile field to transport patients from surgery to recovery. Moreover, surgery outpatients must pass through a major public lobby going to and returning from surgery. The Emergency Department Community Hospital's existing emergency department was constructed in 1992 and is the largest provider of hospital emergency services in Pasco County, handling approximately 35,000 visits per year. The hospital is also designated a "Baker Act" receiving facility under Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, and utilizes two secure examination rooms for emergent psychiatric patients. At less than 8,000 total square feet, the emergency department is severely undersized to meet the needs of its patients. The emergency department is currently undergoing renovation which will connect the triage area to the main emergency department. The renovation will not enlarge the entrance, waiting area, storage, nursing station, nor add privacy to the patient care areas in the emergency department. The renovation will not increase the total size of the emergency department, but in fact, the department's total bed availability will decrease by five beds. Similar to other departments, a more meaningful renovation cannot occur within the emergency department without triggering costly building code compliance measures. In addition to its space limitations, the emergency department is awkwardly located. In 1992, the emergency department was relocated to the front of the hospital and is completely separated from the diagnostic imaging department which remained in the original 1971 building. Consequently, emergency patients are routinely transported across the hospital for imaging and CT scans. Issues Relating to Replacement of Community Hospital Although physically possible, renovating and expanding Community Hospital's existing facility is unreasonable. First, it is cost prohibitive. Any significant renovation to the 1971, 1975, 1977, and 1979 structures would require asbestos abatement prior to construction, at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. In addition, as previously noted, the hospital will be saddled with the major expense of complying with all current building code requirements in the 40-year-old facility. Merely installing showers in patient rooms would immediately trigger a host of expensive, albeit necessary, code requirements involving access, wiring, square footage, fireproofing columns and beams, as well as floor/ceiling and roof/ceiling assemblies. Concurrent with the significant demolition and construction costs, the hospital will experience the incalculable expense and loss of revenue related to closing major portions, if not all, of the hospital. Second, renovation and expansion to the existing facility is an unreasonable option due to its physical restrictions. The 12'4" height of the hospital's first floor limits its ability to accommodate HVAC ductwork large enough to meet current ventilation requirements. In addition, there is inadequate space to expand any department within the confines of the existing hospital without cannibalizing adjacent areas, and vertical expansion is not an option. Community Hospital's application includes a lengthy Facility Condition Assessment which factually details the architectural, mechanical, and electrical deficiencies of the hospital's existing physical plant. The assessment is accurate and reasonable. Community Hospital's Proposed Replacement Community Hospital proposes to construct a six- story, 320 licensed beds, acute care replacement facility. The hospital will consist of 548,995 gross square feet and include a 56-bed adult psychiatric unit connected by a hallway to the first floor of the main hospital building. The proposal also includes the construction of an adjacent medical office building to centralize the outpatient offices and staff physicians. The evidence establishes that the deficiencies inherent in Community Hospital's existing hospital will be cured by its replacement hospital. All patients will be provided large private rooms. The emergency department will double in size, and contain private examination rooms. All building code requirements will be met or exceeded. Patients and staff will have separate elevators from the public. In addition, the surgical department will have large operating rooms, and adequate storage. The MICU and SICU will be adjacent to each other on the second floor to avoid unnecessary traffic within the hospital. Surgical patients will be transported to the ICU via a private elevator dedicated to that purpose. Medical-surgical patient rooms will be efficiently located on the third through sixth floors, in "double-T" configuration. Community Hospital's Existing and Proposed Sites Community Hospital is currently located on a 23-acre site inside the southern boundary of New Port Richey. Single- family homes and offices occupy the two-lane residential streets that surround the site on all sides. The hospital buildings are situated on the northern half of the site, with the main parking lot located to the south, in front of the main entrance to the hospital. Marine Parkway cuts through the southern half of the site from the west, and enters the main parking lot. A private medical mall sits immediately to the west of the main parking lot and a one-acre storm-water retention pond sits to the west of the mall. A private medical office building occupies the south end of the main parking lot and a four-acre drainage easement is located in the southwest corner of the site. Community Hospital's administration has actively analyzed its existing site, aging facility, and adjacent areas. It has commissioned studies by civil engineers, health care consultants, and architects. The collective evidence demonstrates that, although on-site relocation is potentially an option, on balance, it is not a reasonable option. Replacing Community Hospital on its existing site is not practical for several reasons. First, the hospital will experience significant disruption and may be required to completely close down for a period of time. Second, the site's southwestern large four-acre parcel is necessary for storm-water retention and is unavailable for expansion. Third, a reliable cost differential is unknown given Community Hospital's inability to successfully negotiate with the city and owners of the adjacent medical office complexes to acquire additional parcels. Fourth, acquiring other adjacent properties is not a viable option since they consist of individually owned residential lots. In addition to the site's physical restrictions, the site is hindered by its location. The hospital is situated in a neighborhood between small streets and a local school. From the north and south, motorists utilize either U.S. 19, a congested corridor that accommodates approximately 50,000 vehicles per day, or Grand and Madison Streets, two-lane streets within a school zone. From the east and west, motorists utilize similar two-lane neighborhood streets including Marine Parkway, which often floods in heavy rains. Community Hospital's proposed site, on the other hand, is a 53-acre tract positioned five miles from its current facility, at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in southwestern Pasco County. The proposed site offers ample space for all facilities, parking, outpatient care, and future expansion. In addition, Community Hospital's proposed site provides reasonable access to all patients within its existing primary service area made up of zip codes 34652, 34653, 34668, 34655, 34690, and 34691. For example, the average drive times from the population centers of each zip code to the existing site of the hospital and the proposed site are as follows: Zip code Difference Existing site Proposed site 34652 3 minutes 14 minutes 11 minutes 34653 8 minutes 11 minutes 3 minutes 34668 15 minutes 21 minutes 6 minutes 34655 11 minutes 4 minutes -7 minutes 34690 11 minutes 13 minutes 2 minutes 34691 11 minutes 17 minutes 6 minutes While the average drive time from the population centroids of zip codes 34653, 34668, 34690, and 34691 to the proposed site slightly increases, it decreases from the Trinity area, where population growth has been most significant in southwestern Pasco County. In addition, a motorist's average drive time from Community Hospital's existing location to its proposed site is only 10 to 11 minutes, and patients utilizing public transportation will be able to access the new hospital via a bus stop located adjacent to the proposed site. The Condition of North Bay Facility North Bay Hospital is also an aging facility. Its original structure and portions of its physical plant are approximately 30 years old. Portions of its major mechanical systems will soon require replacement including its boilers, air handlers, and chillers. In addition, the hospital is undersized and awkwardly configured. Despite its shortcomings, however, North Bay is generally in good condition. The hospital has been consistently renovated and updated over time and is aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, its second and third floors were added in 1986, are in good shape, and structurally capable of vertical expansion. Medical Surgical Beds and ICU Units By-in-large, North Bay is comprised of undersized, semi-private rooms containing toilet and shower facilities. The hospital does not have any three-bed wards. North Bay's first floor houses all ancillary and support services including lab, radiology, pharmacy, surgery, pre-op, post-anesthesia recovery, central sterile processing and supply, kitchen and cafeteria, housekeeping and administration, as well as the mechanical, electrical, and facilities maintenance and engineering. The first floor also contains a 20-bed CMR unit and a 15-bed acute care unit. North Bay's second and third floors are mostly comprised of semi-private rooms and supporting nursing stations. Although the rooms and stations are not ideally sized, they are in relatively good shape. North Bay utilizes a single ICU with ten critical care beds. The ICU rooms and nursing stations are also undersized. A four-bed ICU ward and former nursery are routinely used to serve overflow patients. Surgery Department and Recovery North Bay utilizes a single pre-operative surgical room for all of its surgery patients. The room accommodates up to five patient beds, but has limited space for storage and pre-operative procedures. Its operating rooms are sufficiently sized. While carts and large equipment are routinely stored in hallways throughout the surgical suite, North Bay has converted the former obstetrics recovery room to surgical storage and has made efficient use of other available space. North Bay operates a small six-bed Post Anesthesia Care Unit. Nurses routinely prepare patient medications in the unit which is often crowded with staff and patients. The Emergency Department North Bay has recently expanded its emergency department. The evidence demonstrates that this department is sufficient and meets current and future expected patient volumes. Replacement Issues Relating to North Bay While it is clear that areas of North Bay's physical plant are aging, the facility is in relatively good condition. It is apparent that North Bay must soon replace significant equipment, including cast-iron sewer pipes, plumbing, boilers, and chillers which will cause some interruption to hospital operations. However, North Bay's four-page written assessment of the facility and its argument citing the need for total replacement is, on balance, not persuasive. North Bay's Proposed Replacement North Bay proposes to construct a new, state-of-the- art, hospital approximately eight miles southeast of its existing facility and intends to offer the identical array of services the hospital currently provides. North Bay's Existing and Proposed Sites North Bay's existing hospital is located on an eight-acre site with limited storm-water drainage capacity. Consequently, much of its parking area is covered by deep, porous, gravel instead of asphalt. North Bay's existing site is generally surrounded by residential properties. While the city has committed, in writing, it willingness to assist both applicants with on-site expansion, it is unknown whether North Bay can acquire additional adjacent property. North Bay's proposed site is located at the intersection of Trinity Oaks Boulevard and Mitchell Boulevard, south of Community Hospital's proposed site, and is quite spacious. It contains sufficient land for the facilities, parking, and future growth, and has all necessary infrastructure in place, including utility systems, storm- water structures, and roadways. Currently however, there is no public transportation service available to North Bay's proposed site. Projected Utilization by Applicants The evidence presented at hearing indicates that, statewide, replacement hospitals often increase a provider's acute care bed utilization. For example, Bartow Memorial Hospital, Heart of Florida Regional Medical Center, Lake City Medical Center, Florida Hospital Heartland Medical Center, South Lake Hospital, and Florida Hospital-Fish Memorial each experienced significant increases in utilization following the opening of their new hospital. The applicants in this case each project an increase in utilization following the construction of their new facility. Specifically, Community Hospital's application projects 82,685 total hospital patient days (64,427 acute care patient days) in year one (2006) of the operation of its proposed replacement facility, and 86,201 total hospital patient days (67,648 acute care patient days) in year two (2007). Using projected 2006 and 2007 population estimates, applying 2002 acute care hospital use rates which are below 50 percent, and keeping Community Hospital's acute care market share constant at its 2002 level, it is reasonably estimated that Community Hospital's existing hospital will experience 52,623 acute care patient days in 2006, and 53,451 acute care patient days in 2007. Consequently, Community Hospital's proposed facility must attain 11,804 additional acute care patient days in 2006, and 14,197 more acute care patient days in 2007, in order to achieve its projected acute care utilization. Although Community Hospital lost eight percent of the acute care market in its service area between 1995 and 2002, two-thirds of that loss was due to residents of Sub- District 5-1 acquiring services in another area. While Community Hospital experienced 78,444 acute care patient days in 1995, it projects only 64,427 acute care patient days in year one. Given the new facility and population factors, it is reasonable that the hospital will recapture half of its lost acute care market share and achieve its projections. With respect to its psychiatric unit, Community Hospital projects 16,615 adult psychiatric inpatient days in year one (2006) and 17,069 adult inpatient days in year two (2007) of the proposed replacement hospital. The evidence indicates that these projections are reasonable. Similarly, North Bay's acute care utilization rate has been consistently below 50 percent. Since 1999, the hospital has experienced declining utilization. In its application, North Bay states that it achieved total actual acute care patient days of 21,925 in 2000 and 19,824 in 2001 and the evidence at hearing indicates that North Bay experienced 17,693 total acute care patient days in 2002. North Bay projects 25,909 acute care patient days in the first year of operation of its proposed replacement hospital, and 27,334 acute care patient days in the second year of operation. Despite each applicant's current facility utilization rate, Community Hospital must increase its current acute care patient days by 20 percent to reach its projected utilization, and North Bay must increase its patient days by at least 50 percent. Given the population trends, service mix and existing competition, the evidence demonstrates that it is not possible for both applicants to simultaneously achieve their projections. In fact, it is strongly noted that the applicants' own projections are predicated upon only one applicant being approved and cannot be supported with the approval of two facilities. Local Health Plan Preferences In its local health plan for District 5, the Suncoast Health Council, Inc., adopted acute care preferences in October, 2000. The replacement of an existing hospital is not specifically addressed by any of the preferences. However, certain acute care preferences and specialty care preferences are applicable. The first applicable preference provides that preference "shall be given to an applicant who proposes to locate a new facility in an area that will improve access for Medicaid and indigent patients." It is clear that the majority of Medicaid and indigent patients live closer to the existing hospitals. However, Community Hospital proposes to move 5.5 miles from its current location, whereas North Bay proposes to move eight miles from its current location. While the short distances alone are less than significant, North Bay's proposed location is further removed from New Port Richey, is not located on a major highway or bus-route, and would therefore be less accessible to the medically indigent residents. Community Hospital's proposed site will be accessible using public transportation. Furthermore, Community Hospital has consistently provided excellent service to the medically indigent and its proposal would better serve that population. In 2000, Community Hospital provided 7.4 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.8 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. Community Hospital provided the highest percentage and greatest number of Medicaid patient days in Sub-District 5-1. By comparison, North Bay provided 5.8 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients and 0.9 percent of its total patient days to charity patients. In 2002, North Bay's Medicaid patients days declined to 3.56 percent. Finally, given the closeness and available bed space of the existing providers and the increasing population in the Trinity area, access will be improved by Community Hospital's relocation. The second local health plan preference provides that "[i]n cases where an applicant is a corporation with previously awarded certificates of need, preference shall be given to those which follow through in a timely manner to construct and operate the additional facilities or beds and do not use them for later negotiations with other organizations seeking to enter or expand the number of beds they own or control." Both applicants meet this preference. The third local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that provide AHCA with documentation that they provide, or propose to provide, the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in the sub-district." Community Hospital provides the largest percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals in Sub-District 5-1, and therefore meets this preference. The fourth local health plan preference applies to "Certificate of Need applications that demonstrate intent to serve HIV/AIDS infected persons." Both applicants accept and treat HIV/AIDS infected persons, and would continue to do so in their proposed replacement hospitals. The fifth local health plan preference recognizes "Certificate of Need applications that commit to provide a full array of acute care services including medical-surgical, intensive care, pediatric, and obstetrical services within the sub-district for which they are applying." Community Hospital qualifies since it will continue to provide its current services, including obstetrical care and psychiatric care, in its proposed replacement hospital. North Bay discontinued its pediatric and obstetrical programs in 2001, does not intend to provide them in its proposed replacement hospital, and will not provide psychiatric care. Agency Rule Preferences Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038(6) provides an applicable preference to a facility proposing "new acute care services and capital expenditures" that has "a documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so." As the largest Medicaid provider in Sub-District 5-1, Community Hospital meets this preference better than does North Bay. North Bay's history demonstrates a declining rate of service to the medically indigent. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1), Florida Statutes: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed in relation to the applicable district health plan District 5 includes Pasco and Pinellas County. Pasco County is rapidly developing, whereas Pinellas County is the most densely populated county in Florida. Given the population trends, service mix, and utilization rates of the existing providers, on balance, there is a need for a replacement hospital in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(2), Florida Statutes: The availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant Community Hospital and North Bay are both located in Sub-District 5-1. Each proposes to relocate to an area of southwestern Pasco County which is experiencing explosive population growth. The other general acute care hospital located in Sub-District 5-1 is Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, which is located further north, in the Hudson area of western Pasco County. The only other acute care hospitals in Pasco County are East Pasco Medical Center, in Zephyrhills, and Pasco Community Hospital, in Dade City. Those hospitals are located in Sub-District 5-2, east Pasco County, far from the area proposed to be served by either Community Hospital or North Bay. District 5 includes Pinellas County as well as Pasco County. Helen Ellis and Mease are existing hospital providers located in Pinellas County. Helen Ellis has 168 licensed beds, consisting of 150 acute care beds and an 18-bed skilled nursing unit, and is located 7.9 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 10.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. Access to Helen Ellis for patients originating from southwestern Pasco County requires those patients to travel congested U.S. 19 south to Tarpon Springs. As a result, the average drive time from Community Hospital's existing and proposed site to Helen Ellis is approximately 22 minutes. Helen Ellis is not a reasonable alternative to Community Hospital's proposal. The applicants' proposals are specifically designed for the current and future health care needs of southwestern Pasco County. Given its financial history, it is unknown whether Helen Ellis will be financially capable of providing the necessary care to the residents of southwestern Pasco. Mease Countryside Hospital has 189 licensed acute care beds. It is located 16.0 miles from Community Hospital's existing location and 13.8 miles from Community Hospital's proposed location. The average drive time to Mease Countryside is 32 minutes from Community Hospital's existing site and 24 minutes from its proposed site. In addition, Mease Countryside Hospital has experienced extremely high utilization over the past several years, in excess of 90 percent for calendar years 2000 and 2001. Utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital has remained over 80 percent despite the addition of 45 acute care beds in April 2002. Given the growth and demand, it is unknown whether Mease can accommodate the residents in southwest Pasco County. Mease Dunedin Hospital has 189 licensed beds, consisting of 149 acute care beds, a 30-bed skilled nursing unit, five Level 2 neonatal intensive care beds, and five Level 3 neonatal intensive care beds. Its former 15-bed adult psychiatric unit has been converted into acute care beds. It is transferring its entire obstetrics program at Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease Dunedin Hospital is located approximately 18 to 20 miles from the applicants' existing and proposed locations with an average drive time of 35-38 minutes. With their remote location, and the exceedingly high utilization at Mease Countryside Hospital, neither of the two Mease hospitals is a viable alternative to the applicants' proposals. In addition, the construction of a replacement hospital would positively impact economic development and further attract medical professionals to Sub-District 5-1. On balance, given the proximity, utilization, service array, and accessibility of the existing providers, including the applicants, the relocation of Community Hospital will enhance access to health care to the residents. Section 408.035(3), Florida Statutes: The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care As stipulated, both applicants provide excellent quality of care. However, Community Hospital's proposal will better enhance its ability to provide quality care. Community is currently undersized, non-compliant with today's standards, and located on a site that does not allow for reasonable expansion. Its emergency department is inadequate for patient volume, and the configuration of the first floor leads to inefficiencies in the diagnosis and treatment of emergency patients. Again, most inpatients are placed in semi-private rooms and three-bed wards, with no showers or tubs, little privacy, and an increased risk of infection. The hospital's waiting areas for families of patients are antiquated and undersized, its nursing stations are small and cramped and the operating rooms and storage facilities are undersized. Community Hospital's deficiencies will be effectively eliminated by its proposed replacement hospital. As a result, patients will experience qualitatively better care by the staff who serve them. Conversely, North Bay is in better physical condition and not in need of replacement. It has more reasonable options to expand or relocate its facility on site. Quality of care at North Bay will not be markedly enhanced by the construction of a new hospital. Sections 408.035(4)and(5), Florida Statutes, have been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Section 408.035(6), Florida Statutes: The availability of resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds available for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation The parties stipulated that both Community Hospital and North Bay have available health personnel and management personnel for project accomplishment and operation. In addition, the evidence proves that both applicants have sufficient funds for capital and operating expenditures. Community Hospital proposes to rely on its parent company to finance the project. Keith Giger, Vice-President of Finance for HCA, Inc., Community Hospital's parent organization, provided credible deposition testimony that HCA, Inc., will finance 100 percent of the total project cost by an inter-company loan at eight percent interest. Moreover, it is noted that the amount to be financed is actually $20 million less than the $196,849,328 stated in the CON Application, since Community Hospital previously purchased the proposed site in June 2003 with existing funds and does not need to finance the land acquisition. Community Hospital has sufficient working capital for operating expenditures of the proposed replacement hospital. North Bay, on the other hand, proposes to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group which includes Morton Plant Hospital Association, Inc.; Mease; and several other hospital entities. Its proposal, while feasible, is less certain since member hospitals must approve the indebtedness, thereby providing Mease with the ability to derail North Bay's proposed bond financing. Section 408.035(7), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district The evidence proves that either proposal will enhance geographical access to the growing population in the service district. However, with its provision of obstetrical services, Community Hospital is better suited to address the needs of the younger community. With respect to financial access, both proposed relocation sites are slightly farther away from the higher elderly and indigent population centers. Since the evidence demonstrates that it is unreasonable to relocate both facilities away from the down-town area, Community Hospital's proposal, on balance, provides better access to poor patients. First, public transportation will be available to Community Hospital's site. Second, Community Hospital has an excellent record of providing care to the poor and indigent and has accepted the agency's condition to provide ten percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid recipients To the contrary, North Bay's site will not be accessible by public transportation. In addition, North Bay has a less impressive record of providing care to the poor and indigent. Although AHCA conditioned North Bay's approval upon it providing 9.7 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients, instead of the 9.7 percent of gross annual revenue proposed in its application, North Bay has consistently provided Medicaid and charity patients less than seven percent of its total annual patient days. Section 408.035(8), Florida Statutes: The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal Immediate financial feasibility refers to the availability of funds to capitalize and operate the proposal. See Memorial Healthcare Group, Ltd. d/b/a Memorial Hospital Jacksonville vs. AHCA et al., Case No. 02-0447 et seq. Community Hospital has acquired reliable financing for the project and has sufficiently demonstrated that its project is immediately financially feasible. North Bay's short-term financial proposal is less secure. As noted, North Bay intends to acquire financing from BayCare Obligated Group. As a member of the group, Mease, the parent company of two hospitals that oppose North Bay's application, must approve the plan. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of the project to reach a break-even point within a reasonable period of time and at a reasonable achievable point in the future. Big Bend Hospice, Inc. vs. AHCA and Covenant Hospice, Inc., Case No. 02-0455. Although CON pro forma financial schedules typically show profitability within two to three years of operation, it is not a requirement. In fact, in some circumstances, such as the case of a replacement hospital, it may be unrealistic for the proposal to project profitability before the third or fourth year of operation. In this case, Community Hospital's utilization projections, gross and net revenues, and expense figures are reasonable. The evidence reliably demonstrates that its replacement hospital will be profitable by the fourth year of operation. The hospital's financial projections are further supported by credible evidence, including the fact that the hospital experienced financial improvement in 2002 despite its poor physical condition, declining utilization, and lost market share to providers outside of its district. In addition, the development and population trends in the Trinity area support the need for a replacement hospital in the area. Also, Community Hospital has benefited from increases in its Medicaid per diem and renegotiated managed care contracts. North Bay's long-term financial feasibility of its proposal is less certain. In calendar year 2001, North Bay incurred an operating loss of $306,000. In calendar year 2002, it incurred a loss of $1,160,000. In its CON application, however, North Bay projects operating income of $1,538,827 in 2007, yet omitted the ongoing expenses of interest ($1,600,000) and depreciation ($3,000,000) from its existing facility that North Bay intends to continue operating. Since North Bay's proposal does not project beyond year two, it is less certain whether it is financially feasible in the third or fourth year. In addition to the interest and depreciation issues, North Bay's utilization projections are less reasonable than Community Hospital's proposal. While possible, North Bay will have a difficult task achieving its projected 55 percent increase in acute care patient days in its second year of operation given its declining utilization, loss of obstetric/pediatric services and termination of two exclusive managed care contracts. Section 408.035(9), Florida Statutes: The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness Both applicants have substantial unused capacity. However, Community Hospital's existing facility is at a distinct competitive disadvantage in the market place. In fact, from 1994 to 1998, Community Hospital's overall market share in its service area declined from 40.3 percent to 35.3 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' overall market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 7.2 percent to 9.2 percent. From 1995 to the 12-month period ending June 30, 2002, Community Hospital's acute care market share in its service area declined from 34.0 percent to 25.9 percent. During that same period, Helen Ellis' acute care market share in Community Hospital's service area increased from 11.7 percent to 12.0 percent. In addition, acute care average occupancy rates at Mease Dunedin Hospital increased each year from 1999 through 2002. Acute care average occupancy at Mease Countryside Hospital exceeded 90 percent in 2000 and 2001, and was approximately 85 percent for the period ending June 30, 2002. Some of the loss in Community Hospital's market share is due to an out-migration of patients from its service area to hospitals in northern Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties. Market share in Community's service area by out-of- market providers increased from 33 percent in 1995 to 40 percent in 2002. Community Hospital's outdated hospital has hampered its ability to compete for patients in its service area. Mease is increasing its efforts to attract patients and currently completing a $92 million expansion of Mease Countryside Hospital. The project includes the development of 1,134 parking spaces on 30 acres of raw land north of the Mease Countryside Hospital campus and the addition of two floors to the hospital. It also involves the relocation of 51 acute care beds, the obstetrics program and the Neonatal Intensive Care Units from Mease Dunedin Hosptial to Mease Countryside Hospital. Mease is also seeking to more than double the size of the Countryside emergency department to handle its 62,000 emergency visits. With the transfer of licensed beds from Mease Dunedin Hospital to Mease Countryside Hospital, Mease will also convert formerly semi-private patient rooms to private rooms at Mease Dunedin Hospital. The approval of Community Hospital's relocated facility will enable it to better compete with the hospitals in the area and promote quality and cost- effectiveness. North Bay, on the other hand, is not operating at a distinct disadvantage, yet is still experiencing declining utilization. North Bay is the only community-owned, not-for- profit provider in western Pasco County and is a valuable asset to the city. Section 408.035(10), Florida Statutes: The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including the costs and methods or energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction The parties stipulated that the project costs in both applications are reasonable to construct the replacement hospitals. Community Hospital's proposed construction cost per square foot is $175, and slightly less than North Bay's $178 proposal. The costs and methods of proposed construction for each proposal is reasonable. Given Community Hospital's severe site and facility problems, the evidence demonstrates that there is no reasonable, less costly, or more effective methods of construction available for its proposed replacement hospital. Additional "band-aide" approaches are not financially reasonable and will not enable Community Hospital to effectively compete. The facility is currently licensed for 401 beds, operates approximately 311 beds and is still undersized. The proposed replacement hospital will meet the standards in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.081, and will meet current building codes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Guidelines for Design and Construction of Hospitals and Health Care Facilities, developed by the American Institute of Architects. The opponents' argue that Community Hospital will not utilize the 320 acute care beds proposed in its CON application, and therefore, a smaller facility is a less- costly alternative. In addition, Helen Ellis' architectural expert witness provided schematic design alternatives for Community Hospital to be expanded and replaced on-site, without providing a detailed and credible cost accounting of the alternatives. Given the evidence and the law, their arguments are not persuasive. While North Bay's replacement cost figures are reasonable, given the aforementioned reasons, including the fact that the facility is in reasonably good condition and can expand vertically, on balance, it is unreasonable for North Bay to construct a replacement facility in the Trinity area. Section 408.035(11), Florida Statutes: The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent Community Hospital has consistently provided the most health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent in Sub-District 5-1. Community Hospital agreed to provide at least ten percent of its patient days to Medicaid recipients. Similarly, North Bay agreed to provide 9.7 percent of its total annual patient days to Medicaid and charity patients combined. North Bay, by contrast, provided only 3.56 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients in 2002, and would have to significantly reverse a declining trend in its Medicaid provision to comply with the imposed condition. Community Hospital better satisfies the criterion. Section 408.035(12) has been stipulated as not applicable in this case. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Historical figures demonstrate that hospital market shares are not static, but fluctuate with competition. No hospital is entitled to a specific or historic market share free from competition. While the applicants are located in health planning Sub-District 5-1 and Helen Ellis and the two Mease hospitals are located in health planning Sub-District 5- 2, they compete for business. None of the opponents is a disproportionate share, safety net, Medicaid provider. As a result, AHCA gives less consideration to any potential adverse financial impact upon them resulting from the approval of either application as a low priority. The opponents, however, argue that the approval of either replacement hospital would severely affect each of them. While the precise distance from the existing facilities to the relocation sites is relevant, it is clear that neither applicants' proposed site is unreasonably close to any of the existing providers. In fact, Community Hospital intends to locate its replacement facility three miles farther away from Helen Ellis and 1.5 miles farther away from Mease Dunedin Hospital. While Helen Ellis' primary service area is seemingly fluid, as noted by its chief operating officer's hearing and deposition testimony, and the Mease hospitals are located 15 to 20 miles south, they overlap parts of the applicants' primary service areas. Accordingly, each applicant concedes that the proposed increase in their patient volume would be derived from the growing population as well as existing providers. Although it is clear that the existing providers may be more affected by the approval of Community Hosptial's proposal, the exact degree to which they will be adversely impacted by either applicant is unknown. All parties agree, however, that the existing providers will experience less adverse affects by the approval of only one applicant, as opposed to two. Furthermore, Mease concedes that its hospitals will continue to aggressively compete and will remain profitable. In fact, Mease's adverse impact analysis does not show any credible reduction in loss of acute care admissions at Mease Countryside Hospital or Mease Dunedin Hospital until 2010. Even then, the reliable evidence demonstrates that the impact is negligible. Helen Ellis, on the other hand, will likely experience a greater loss of patient volume. To achieve its utilization projections, Community Hospital will aggressively compete for and increase market share in Pinellas County zip code 34689, which borders Pasco County. While that increase does not facially prove that Helen Ellis will be materially affected by Community Hospital's replacement hospital, Helen Ellis will confront targeted competition. To minimize the potential adverse affect, Helen Ellis will aggressively compete to expand its market share in the Pinellas County zip codes south of 34689, which is experiencing population growth. In addition, Helen Ellis is targeting broader service markets, and has filed an application to establish an open- heart surgery program. While Helen Ellis will experience greater competition and financial loss, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it will experience material financial adverse impact as a result of Community Hospital's proposed relocation. In fact, Helen Ellis' impact analysis is less than reliable. In its contribution-margin analysis, Helen Ellis utilized its actual hospital financial data as filed with AHCA for the fiscal year October 1, 2001, to September 30, 2002. The analysis included total inpatient and total outpatient service revenues found in the filed financial data, including ambulatory services and ancillary services, yet it did not include the expenses incurred in generating ambulatory or ancillary services revenue. As a result, the overstated net revenue per patient day was applied to its speculative lost number of patient days which resulted in an inflated loss of net patient service revenue. Moreover, the evidence indicates that Helen Ellis' analysis incorrectly included operational revenue and excluded expenses related to its 18-bed skilled nursing unit since neither applicant intends to operate a skilled nursing unit. While including the skilled nursing unit revenues, the analysis failed to include the sub-acute inpatient days that produced those revenues, and thereby over inflated the projected total lost net patient service revenue by over one million dollars.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Community Hospital's CON Application No. 9539, to establish a 376-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub- District 5-1, be granted; and North Bay's CON Application No. 9538, to establish a 122-bed replacement hospital in Pasco County, Sub-District 5- 1, be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Hauser, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Richard J. Saliba, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building III, Mail Station 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the methodology for grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB pursuant to Sections 4D- 1.03, 4D-1.12(1) and 4D-1.12(2), F.A.C., constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as being arbitrary or capricious? Mercy has also raised one issue as to whether the grouping methodology is violative of constitutional guarantees of administrative equal protection and due process. This issue, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Introduction. The HCCB and Its Hospital Grouping Function. The HCCB was formed pursuant to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1979). The HCCB was created pursuant to the specific authority of Section 395.503, Florida Statutes (1979), in order to further the accomplishment of legislative intent contained in Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): It is the intent of the Legislature to assure that adequate health care is affordable and accessible to all the citizens of this state. To further the accomplishment of this goal, the Hospital Cost Containment Board is created to advise the Legislature regarding health care costs; inflationary trends in health care costs; the impact of health care costs on the state budget; the impact of hospital charges and third-party reimbursement mechanisms on health care costs; and the education of consumers and providers of health care services in order to encourage price competition in the health care marketplace. The Legislature finds and declares that rising hospital costs and cost shifting are of vital concern to the people of this state because of the danger that hospital services are becoming unaffordable and thus inaccessible to residents of the state. It is further declared that hospital costs should be contained through improved competition between hospitals and improved competition between insurers, through financial incentives which foster efficiency instead of inefficiency, and through sincere initiatives on behalf of providers, insurers, and consumers to contain costs. As a safety net, it is the intent of the Legislature to establish a program of prospective budget review and approval in the event that competition-oriented methods do not adequately contain costs and the access of Floridians to adequate hospital care becomes jeopardized because of unaffordable costs. As a part of its responsibilities the HCCB is required, "after consulting with appropriate professional and governmental advisory bodies and holding public hearings, and considering existing and proposed systems of accounting and reporting utilized by hospitals," to specify a uniform system of financial reporting for hospitals. Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes Suppl.) to: In order to allow "meaningful comparisons" of data reported by hospitals under the uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB is required by Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.) to group hospitals according to characteristics, including, but not limited to, a measure of the nature and range of services provided, teaching hospital status, number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff, percentage of Medicare inpatient days, average daily census, geographical differences, and, when available, case mix. In providing for grouping of hospital, the HCCB is required to establish ten general hospital groups and additional speciality groups "as needed." Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). No hospital group can contain fewer than five hospitals, however. Id. Grouping is to be provided by rule. Id. Pursuant to Section 395.509(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), every Florida hospital is required to file its budget with the HCCB for "approval." The budget is required to be filed on forms adopted by the HCCB and based on the uniform system of financial reporting. Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). To determine whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, all hospitals in Florida are to be placed in groups. A hospital's budget is then compared to the budgets of the hospitals assigned to its group. Hospital groups for this purpose are established pursuant to Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The provisions of Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), are identical to Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In determining whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, Section 305.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), establishes two initial "screens" which a hospital must meet based upon the hospital's gross revenue per adjusted admission. The term "gross revenue" is defined as: the sum of daily hospital service charges, ambulatory service charges, ancillary service charges, and other operating revenue. Gross revenues do not include contributions, donations, legacies, or bequests made to a hospital without restriction by the donors. Section 395.502(11), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). "Adjusted admission" is defined by Section 395.502(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), as: the sum of acute admissions and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues generated from acute, intensive, ambulatory, and ancillary patient services to gross revenues. Gross revenues per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "GRAA") is therefore the total hospital ambulatory and ancillary service charges and other operating revenue for all acute and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues from acute, intensive, ambulatory and ancillary patient services to gross revenue; or, stated more simply , inpatient revenue per admission. The "screens" which must be met in order for a hospital's budget to be approved upon initial determination are: (1) the hospital's GRAA must not be in the upper 20th percentile of the hospitals within its group; and (2) the rate of increase in a hospital's GRAA as contained in its current budget compared to the hospital's GRAA as reported in its most recently approved budget must not exceed a "maximum allowable rate of increase" if the hospital's GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of the hospitals in its group. If a hospital's GRAA is in the 49th percentile or less of the hospitals in its group, its budget is automatically approved. In determining whether a hospital's GRAA fails the screens, Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides: Percentile values for gross operating revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly by the board for each group established pursuant to s. 395.507(2) by ranking projected gross operating revenues per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. In determining the applicability of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), the board shall consider the basis of the projections by the hospital, including consideration of the following factors: any increase in patient admissions caused by the creation of preferred provider organizations or health maintenance organiza- tions, population increases, changes in the hospital case mix or in services offered, changes in technology, or other similar factors. If a hospital's GRAA fails either of the screens (its GRAA is in the upper 20th percentile of its group or its GRAA rate of increase is excessive and its GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of its group) that hospital's budget must be reviewed by the HCCB "to determine whether the rate of increase contained in the budget is just, reasonable, and not excessive." Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Pursuant to Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB is authorized, if it first determines under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that the hospital's rate of increase is not just, reasonable and not excessive, to amend or disapprove any hospital's budget which does not meet the two screens of Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to establish a rate of increase which is "just, reasonable, and not excessive." The HCCB's authority under Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), applies only if the HCCB first complies with the following pertinent provisions of Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): The board shall disapprove any budget, or part thereof, as excess that contains a rate of increase which is not necessary to maintain the existing level of services of the hospital or, if the hospital increases its existing level of services, any amount not necessary to accomplish that increase. In making such deterioration . . . the board shall consider the following criteria: The efficiency, sufficiency, and adequacy of the services and facilities provided by the hospital. The cost of providing services and the value of the services to the public. The ability of the hospital to improve services and facilities. The ability of the hospital to reduce the cost of services. The ability of the hospital to earn a reasonable rate of return. The accuracy of previous budget submissions by the hospital compared to the actual experience of the hospital the The number of patient days reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid. The number of patient days attributable to the medically indigent. The research and educational services provided by the hospital if it is a teaching hospital. The projected expenditures or revenues for or from construction of facilities or new services which are subject to regulation under s. 381.494 may not be included in the budget of a hospital until the construction or services are approved or authorized by the state health planning agency. The cost of opening a new hospital, for first 3 years. The Challenged Rules. In carrying out its duty to establish a uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB adopted Section 4D- 1.03, F.A.C., which provides: The Board, pursuant to Section 395.505, Florida Statutes, hereby adopts and establishes a uniform system for hospitals to file the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report of financial and statistical information. This system is described and the forms, instructions, and definitions therefor are contained in the Board's publication entitled Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual. The Chart of Accounts adopted pursuant to Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes, and this Chapter 4D-1, and as hereafter modified, shall be utilized by each hospital for submitting the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report and the budget report. In order to determine whether a hospital's budget should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB adopted Section 4D-1.12, F.A.C. Sections 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., provide: The staff shall review the budget report based upon the hospital's ranking for gross revenue per adjusted admission within its group and upon its rate of change in gross revenue per adjusted admission in the proposed budget as required in Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes, and the most recently Board approved budget. As part of the budget report review process, groupings of hospitals shall be established according to the characteristics and methodology as outlined in Chapter V, Section B, Hospital Unit Uniform Reporting System Manual and as outlined in Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes. Percentile values for gross revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly for each group by ranking projected gross revenue per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. 12. Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., are the rules challenged by Mercy. These rules, as quoted herein, were effective as of November 5, 1984. The rules were originally adopted effective June 30, 1980. The rules were amended to their present wording in response to "major" legislation enacted in 1984 which amended Part II, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), and granted authority to the HCCB for the first time to approve, disapprove or amend hospital budgets under certain circumstances. Chapter 79-106, Laws of Florida. The challenged rules essentially provide that the HCCB, when grouping of hospitals for purposes of the uniform system of financial reporting and for purposes of reviewing and comparing budgets to determine if they should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will apply the grouping methodology outlined in Chapter V, Section B of the Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"). Section 4D-1.18, F.A.C., also adopted effective November 5, 1984, incorporates by reference the Manual within each rule in Chapter 4D-1, F.A.C., which references the Manual. This rule has not been challenged in this proceeding. The Hospital Grouping Methodology and Its Development. Generally, Chapter V, Section B of the Manual, sets out the objective of the grouping methodology, the procedure for forming groups, a list of the variables considered in forming groups and the weight to be accorded each variable. The goals of the grouping methodology, as provided in the Manual, are to "facilitate comparison of hospitals with similar patient mix and market conditions" and to "develop groups of sufficient size . . . to assure statistically valid comparisons." Based upon the procedure for forming groups contained in the Manual, hospitals are grouped into nine, non-teaching, short-term hospital groups, one Major teaching hospital group and a number of specialty hospital groups. It is the method of grouping hospitals into nine short-term hospital groups which is at issue in this proceeding. Assignment of hospitals to the nine short-term hospital groups is accomplished through the use of the "McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm included in the cluster analysis t computer program package CLAN developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham (June, 1980 version)." A clustering analysis is a method of grouping a set of objects (in this case, hospitals) into relatively homogeneous groups. The goal of a clustering algorithm is to minimize the differences between the members of the group. The objects are grouped based upon a set of variables which are considered significant for purposes of comparing the objects. In order to account for the significance of each variable, the variables are weighted. The variables have a numerical score and after weighing, the weighted sum of the variables for each object is compared and the objects are grouped based upon their variable scores. There are a number of clustering algorithms which can be used to group hospitals. The HCCB chose to use the "McQueen's K-means" clustering algorithm. The use of McQueens K-means clustering algorithm has not bean challenged in this proceeding. Nor does the evidence establish that the selection of McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm is arbitrary and capricious. The clustering algorithm is performed by computer. The computer program utilized by the HCCB to perform the algorithm is called "CLAN" and was developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham. The evidence at the hearing supports a finding that the selection of this computer program is reasonable. Once hospitals are grouped, they are notified of their group designation and allowed to request reconsideration of their group assignment. The request must made within thirty days after notification. Following the creation of the HCCB in 1979, Price Waterhouse & Company was engaged by the HCCB as a consultant to assist in still establishing an appropriate hospital grouping methodology. The HCCB also created an advisory committee to assist the HCCB and Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology. This committee, designated as the Technical Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "TAC") was comprised of individuals from the hospital industry and academia and certified public accountants. The TAC worked with Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology and the uniform reporting system. Because of time constraints, the TAC's involvement with evaluating the methodology was limited. The HCCB ultimately decided to pattern the grouping methodology it adopted after the grouping methodology then being used by the State of Washington, as recommended by Price Waterhouse & Company. The Washington system was not adopted exactly; a number of changes to Washington's methodology were made to the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. Mercy has proposed several findings of fact beginning on page 35 and ending on page 38 of its proposed order concerning the "Differences in Washington Hospital Characteristics and Grouping Methodology Model." Those proposed findings of fact can be and are hereby disposed of by the following finding of fact: because of differences in the hospital industries of the States of Florida and Washington and other differences between the two States, Florida's grouping methodology cannot be justified solely on the basis that Washington's grouping methodology was used as a starting point in developing Florida's grouping methodology. Those differences, however, do not support a finding of fact that Florida's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious since the Washington system was not adopted without substantial modifications, including a reduction of Washington's eighteen variables initially to fourteen and ultimately to seven, and the use of unequal weighting of the variables. The TAC reviewed and discussed the grouping methodology initially approved by the HCCB prior to its approval. Some of Mercy's witnesses, who were members of the TAC, indicated during their testimony that the TAC never decided anything because no "vote" was ever taken of TAC members and that the TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. Their testimony in this regard has been given little weight. The fact that no formal "vote" was taken of TAC members does not mean that the TAC did not take a position on matters it discussed. The consensus of the TAC could be, and was, gleaned from its discussions. The staff of the HCCB in fact reported decisions of the TAC to the HCCB verbally and by minutes of TAC meetings. Although the accuracy of staff's reports was sometimes questioned, no question was raised about whether TAC had taken positions. The fact that the HCCB staff reported TAC actions to the HCCB also disputes the testimony to the effect that TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. While it may be true that TAC did not deal directly with the HCCB, its analysis was reported, to the HCCB. The HCCB ultimately adopted rules effective June 30, 1980, which incorporated by reference to the Manual, the general outline of the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. The TAC ceased to exist following adoption of the HCCB's initial rules. Two new advisory committees were formed: a Technical Advisory Panel (hereinafter referred to as "TAP") on grouping and a TAP for financial analysis. The grouping TAP was made up of individuals from the hospital industry. The grouping TAP met in November and December of 1980 and reviewed the results of test runs of the grouping methodology initially adopted by the HCCB. The results of the initial run were described as "bizarre." This run used equal weighting of the variables. Equal weighting was abandoned and three to four more test runs were made and reviewed by the grouping TAP. After each run the variable weights were adjusted until the results appeared to be "reasonable." The HCCB also established a committee consisting of members of the HCCB designated as the Research and Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "R & D Committee"). The R & D Committee reviewed the results of test runs and also found the final groups reasonable. The HCCB met in January, 1981, and adopted the grouping methodology with the adjusted variable weights arrived at as a result of the test runs for use in establishing hospital groups for use in 1981. The grouping methodology was reviewed every year after its initial adoption in 1980. The methodology was reviewed by the HCCB, HCCB's staff, the TAP's and the R & D Committee each year. Throughout the period from 1980 to the present, criticisms of the grouping methodology have been made. Some of these criticisms were agreed with and others were rejected by the HCCB or its staff. Following review of the grouping methodology by the TAP's and the R & D Committee in 1981, the original fourteen variables were reduced to eight. In January, 1982, the weight of one of the variables was changed and one variable was replaced by another variable. In December, 1982, a variable was deleted; seven variables remained. In 1983, clustering analysis was limited in its application to the formation of short-term acute care general hospital groups. In 1984, following the significant amendment of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), the HCCB adopted the present challenged rules. The rules were effective November 5, 1984. The only change in the grouping methodology approved by the HCCB was the substitution of the Florida price level index variable for percent of population over age 65. The weight assigned to the Florida price level index was the same as the weight that had been assigned to the percent of population over age 65. The changes made to the grouping methodology in 1984 were first suggested by the staff of the HCCB to the grouping TAP in June of 1984. The grouping TAP met on July 11, 1984 and considered and discussed the proposed changes. A number of problem areas were discussed. Although no test run results were presented at this TAP meeting, they were provided to TAP members before the HCCB adopted the grouping methodology changes. Concerns about the geographic or exogenous variables expressed at the grouping TAP meeting suggested a belief that too much or too little emphasis was being placed on geographic considerations. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact beginning on page 33 and ending on page 35 of its proposed order concerning the significance of the changes made by the Legislature in 1984 to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983). Those proposed findings of fact essentially deal with the fact that the powers of the HCCB after the 1984 amendments may have a more significant impact on hospitals and that, therefore, the grouping methodology is of greater interest to hospitals. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not, however, relevant in determining whether the challenged rules are arbitrary and capricious. The fact that the effect of the grouping methodology on a hospital may now be different does not mean that the use of the grouping methodology, as modified after the 1984 legislative changes to the law, which was developed when the purpose of grouping was different, is not an appropriate methodology. The evidence does not support such a conclusion. Therefore, to the extent that Mercy's proposed findings of fact under Section II, A, of its proposed order have not already been made, they are rejected as unnecessary. Mercy and the HCCB have proposed findings of fact as to whether Mercy has ever questioned the HCCB's grouping methodology since it was first adopted prior to instituting this proceeding. Those proposed findings of fact are not deemed relevant in determining whether the grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. If the grouping methodology is in fact arbitrary and capricious, the fact that Mercy did not challenge the methodology when it was first adopted will not make it any less arbitrary and capricious today. Mercy's Challenge. A. Introduction. Mercy is a not-for-profit, general acute care hospital with 550 licensed beds located in Dade County, Florida. Mercy has raised a number of points in this proceeding and its proposed order in challenging the rules in question. All of those points, according to Mercy, prove that the rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. In determining whether the facts support such a conclusion, the following standard must be kept in mind: [I]n a 120.54 hearing, the hearing officer must look to the legislative authority for the rule and determine whether or not the proposed rule is encompassed within the grant. The burden is upon one who attacks the proposed rule to show that the agency, if it adopts the rule, would exceed its authority; that the requirements of the rule are not appropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act; that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation or that the proposed rule or the requirements thereof are arbitrary or capricious. A capricious action is one which is taken without thought or reason or irrationally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic or despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based upon competent substantial evidence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Agrico Chemical Company v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 74 (1979). Additionally, the following must be kept in mind: The well recognized general rule is that agencies are to be accorded wide discretion in the exercise of their lawful rulemaking authority, clearly conferred or fairly implied and consistent with the agencies' general statutory duties. . . . An agency's construction of the statute it administers is entitled to great weight and is not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous. . . . Where, as here, the agency's interpretation of a statute has been promulgated in rulemaking proceedings, the validity of such rule must be upheld if it is reasonably related to the purposes of the legislation interpreted and it is not arbitrary and capricious. The burden is upon petitioner in a rule challenge to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the rule or its requirements are arbitrary and capricious. . . . Moreover, the agency's interpretation of a statute need not be the sole possible interpretation or even the most desirable one; it need only be within the range of possible interpretations. Department of Professional Regulation v. Durrani, 455 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The witnesses who testified in this proceeding who were accepted as experts were qualified in a number of different areas. Those witnesses qualified as experts in statistical analysis or related areas and health care finance rendered opinions as to the appropriateness of the HCCB's grouping methodology. The method of grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB is a statistical method. Therefore, the determination of whether the HCCB's methodology is arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon whether the methodology is statistically sound. Mercy and the HCCB therefore presented the testimony of witnesses qualified in the area of statistics: Rick Zimmerman, Ph.D., an expert in statistical analysis and social science statistics (for Mercy), and Duane Meeter, Ph.D., an expert in economics and applied statistical analysis and Frank Fox, Jr., Ph.D., an expert in applied statistics (for the HCCB). All three witnesses were knowledgeable and credible. Dr. Zimmerman testified that the HCCB's grouping methodology was "clearly inappropriate." Dr. Zimmerman's opinion was based upon a three step analysis in which he determined: (1) whether the variables selected by the HCCB are appropriate; (2) whether the weights assigned to the variables by the HCCB are appropriate; and, (3) the effect changing the variables and/or weights would have on hospital groups. The results of Dr. Zimmerman's analysis, which formed the basis for his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology is not appropriate, are discussed, infra. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact in its proposed order concerning the credibility of Dr. Meeter's and Dr. Fox's testimony. Some of those proposed findings of fact have been considered in determining the weight given to their testimony. Both Dr. Meeter and Dr. Fox were, however, knowledgeable and credible. In addition to the opinion of its statistical expert, Mercy presented the testimony of three witnesses who were accepted as experts in health care finance: Messrs. Lawrence R. Murray, Jerry A. Mashburn and Anthony Krayer. All three are certified public accountants. All testified that it was his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology was arbitrary. The bases for their opinions are discussed, infra. Selection of "Seed" Hospitals. In order to use a clustering algorithm, a starting point is needed; the first object (hospital) to be placed in each group must be selected. The first objects selected are called "seed" objects. Mercy has attached the HCCB's method of selecting the nine "seed" hospitals in initially performing the McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm. Mercy has proposed the following findings of fact with regard to this point: While none of the parties challenged the use of McQueen's and the CLAN program, no support was offered during the hearing for the method by which the HCCB had selected the nine seed hospitals as initial clustering points. The HCCB's own statistician criticized the HCCB's selection method. The Rankis-Zimmerman report indicates that the final groupings based upon the HCCB's seed hospitals were vastly different than groupings based upon the utilization of seed hospitals selected on a statistical basis. Both the HCCB's and Mercy's statisticians proposed statistically sound methods for selecting seed hospitals, which had not been employed by the HCCB in the Grouping Methodology. [Citations omitted] These proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this proceeding. The burden is on Mercy to show that the selection of "seed" hospitals was arbitrary and capricious; the HCCB is not required to show "support" for its method of selecting the seed hospitals. Additionally, whether there are other methods of selecting seed hospitals is not the test. The HCCB's interpretation of the statute need not be the sole interpretation or even the most desirable one; it only needs to be within the range of possible interpretations. Durrani, supra. Therefore, even if the Rankis-Zimmerman report does indicate that the final groupings of hospitals of the HCCB were vastly different than groupings based upon other methods of selecting seed hospitals, it does not automatically follow that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was not "within the range of possible interpretations. The weight of the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was arbitrary and capricious. Selection of the Variables. In delegating legislative authority to the HCCB to establish a grouping methodology, the Legislature provided that the following relevant characteristics are to be taken into account: A measure of the nature and range of services provided; Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff; Percentage of Medicare inpatient days; Average daily census; Geographic differences; and Case mix, "when available." In response to the Legislature's mandate, the HCCB has adopted seven variables or characteristics. The variables selected by the HCCB include five hospital- specific (endogenous) variables and two geographic (exogenous variables). The variables are as follows: Endogenous Variables: Average occupied beds. Available services. Physician mix. Number of residents. Percent Medicare days. Exogenous Variables: Florida price level index. Personal income. The following findings of fact are made with regard to each of the specific characteristics required to be taken into account by the Legislature and the variables adopted by the HCCB: 1. A measure of the nature and range of services provided. The HCCB has provided in the Manual that "available services" or a service index will be considered. The specific services considered are listed on Table B, Chapter V, of the Manual. Table B also weights or provides a score for each of the various services listed. Each hospital gets the specified score if it has a particular service available. The available services listed are based upon a survey of hospital administrators and chief financial officers in New York, New York, made in the 1970's. Problems with the list of available services have been pointed out to the HCCB and its staff. The primary problem is that the volume of services provided is not taken into account. The problems with the service index, however, relate to the fact that the service index is a proxy for case mix. To date, there is no alternative available which would be a better proxy for case mix. The Legislature contemplated this fact by providing that a measure of the services provided by a hospital will be considered and that case mix will be taken into account "when available." Therefore, while there are "problems" with the service index, consideration of available services is mandated by the Legislature and there are no acceptable alternatives available use for by the HCCB. 2. Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff. 52. The HCCB has provided that a physician specialties mix be considered in grouping hospitals. This physician specialties mix is based upon a list of twenty- six specialties for which a hospital gets a single credit for each specialty available regardless of the number of physician specialists available in each specialty or the volume of patients admitted by a physician. 52. Like the service index, the physician specialties mix is a proxy for ease mix and has problems associated with its use. Also like the service index, consideration of this factor is mandated and there are no acceptable alternatives available for use by the HCCB. 3. Percentage of Medicare inpatient days. 53. The HCCB has provided that "percentage Medicare days be considered in grouping hospitals. Consideration of this variable has not been shown to be arbitrary and capricious. 4. Average daily census. 53. The HCCB has provided that "average occupied beds" is to be considered in grouping hospitals. It does not appear that this variable's use was proper, as discussed, infra. 5. Geographic differences. The HCCB has provided that geographic differences be considered in grouping hospitals by providing for the inclusion of the Florida price level index, by county, and median income, by county, as variables to be considered. The only thing that the evidence established with regard to these variables was that they are not "very good" predictors, that "if" they are intended as a measure of input prices they are "poor substitutes," and that there may be "better" measures of the cost of doing business. The evidence does not, however, show that the use of these variables is arbitrary and capricious. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning geographic influences in part II, H of its proposed order. The proposed findings of fact begin on page 29 and end on page 33. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not made in this Final Order because they are not deemed relevant or material and are unnecessary to the resolution of this proceeding. The proposed findings of fact contained in part II, H of Mercy's proposed order purportedly show that the HCCB has inadequately accounted for geographic influences. The evidence does establish that the financial characteristics of Florida hospitals and GRAA are affected by the geographic location of a hospital. This is especially true in Florida because of the impact on parts of the State from tourism, language barriers, the number of elderly residents, the available labor markets, and competition. It is also true that the combined weights of the two geographic variables the HCCB has selected for consideration in the grouping methodology--the Florida price level index and median income--is only one-seventh of the combined weights of all the HCCB's variables. It is also true that the grouping methodology results in hospitals from different areas of the State being grouped together, i.e., Mercy's hospital group includes twenty- three hospitals, four of which are located in Dade County and three of which are located in Escambia County. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the HCCB has been arbitrary and capricious in designating only two variables to take into account geographic differences between hospitals. The evidence also does not support a conclusion that it was not proper for the HCCB to limit the weight of the geographic variables to one-seventh of the total weight of the variables. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the inclusion of hospitals from different areas of the State in the same group is not a proper result just because geographic influences are important. The fact that a large percentage of Dade County and south Florida hospitals do not qualify for automatic approval of their budgets under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), because they are in the upper 20th and the upper 50th to 79th percentiles does not necessarily prove that geographic influences have not been adequately accounted for either, as suggested be Mercy on page 30 of its proposed order. The evidence simply does not support such a conclusion. Nor does it necessarily follow that because Dade County hospitals are "efficient" in the minds of some of Mercy's witnesses and yet are unable to achieve automatic approval of their budgets that the grouping methodology does not adequately account for geographic influences, as suggested by Mercy on pages 30 and 31 of its proposed order. First, the Legislature has provided that factors other than geographic differences are to be considered, which the HCCB has provided for. It may therefore be that some Dade County hospitals do not achieve automatic approval of their budgets because of the other variables. The fact that not all Dade County hospitals fail to achieve automatic approval of their budgets supports such a conclusion. Also, even though a hospital's budget is not automatically approved it does not necessarily mean that it is considered inefficient. If that were the case, its budget would probably be subject automatically to amendment or disapproval. That is not the case. If a hospital's budget is not automatically approved its budget is subject to further review under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). It may still be determined that the hospital is "efficient" based upon this review. The Legislature, in enacting Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, did indicate that it intended to promote competition and efficiency among hospitals in order to contain hospital costs. Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The grouping methodology and, in particular, the comparison of hospitals' GRAA under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not alone achieve that intent. Therefore the opinion of several of Mercy's witnesses that Dade County hospitals and in particular, Mercy, are efficient does not support a conclusion that the methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic influences are not adequately considered. On pages 31 and 32 of its proposed order, Mercy suggests that Dade County hospitals only compete with other Dade County hospitals and therefore grouping hospitals from all sections of the State is illogical. In support of this suggestion, Mercy proposes findings of fact to the effect that the HCCB has recognized that consumers are interested in comparing hospital charges on a regional basis and has provided information about hospital cost on a county-by- county basis in the past. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not accepted for essentially the same reasons that its proposed findings of fact with regard to the efficiency of hospitals were rejected. These proposed findings of fact do not support a finding that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic differences have not been adequately taken into account. Mercy's has also proposed findings of fact with regard to geographic differences to the effect that after the Legislature specifically required that "geographic differences" be considered in an amendment to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1981), in 1982, the HCCB has not added any additional geographic factors to be considered. Although no additional geographic variables have been added, geographic variables have been reviewed and have been changed since 1982. More importantly, these proposed findings of fact do not prove that the existing variables are not adequate. 6. Case Mix. 66. Case mix is to be taken into account "when available." The evidence does not establish that case mix is available at this time. 7. Other variables. The HCCB is not limited to a consideration of the factors which the Legislature specifically provided are to be considered. Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The only other variable the HCCB has provided for consideration is "number of residents." No evidence of significance concerning this variable was presented at the hearing. There was testimony at the hearing that there are other variables which would be appropriate for consideration in grouping hospitals. The evidence does not, however, establish that failure to consider other variables means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman opined that he had determined that the variables selected by the HCCB were not appropriate. Dr. Zimmerman based his opinion upon the fact that he had conducted a "multiple regression analysis." According to Dr. Zimmerman, a "multiple regression analysis is a statistical procedure used to evaluate the relationship of a given set of independent, predictor variables (the HCCB's seven variables) to a single dependent variable (GRAA)." Based upon his application of multiple regression analysis, Dr. Zimmerman concluded that three of the variables used in the HCCB's grouping methodology are not statistically significant predictors of GRAA: available services, average occupied beds and median income. Two of these variables (available services and average occupied beds) are required by Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to be taken into account in the grouping methodology. These Sections also require that geographic factors, which median income is, be taken into account. This does not, however, mean that median income must be included as a variable by the HCCB. Dr. Meeter testified that the statistical significance of the HCCB's variables can be determined by the use of "log transformation." Based upon Dr. Meeter's use of log transformation, median income and available services are statistically significant variables; average occupied beds is not statistically significant. Although the HCCB was required to include "average daily census" as a factor in grouping hospitals, the HCCB was not required to use "average occupied beds." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's and Dr. Meeter's testimony, the use of average occupied beds as a variable was not proper. Whether the use of available services and median income as variables was proper depends upon whether log transformation is a proper method of determining the statistical significance of variables. Although the evidence on this question was in conflict, it appears that the use of log transformation was proper. The inclusion of available services and median income is therefore not arbitrary and capricious. A second problem with the variables used by the HCCB suggested by Dr. Zimmerman involves the correlation between the seven predictor variables or "multicollinearity." The existence of multicollinearity can invalidate a clustering program. Dr. Zimmerman determined that the correlation between the physician mix, available services and average occupied beds variables and between the Florida price level index and median income variables is large enough that there is a "potential" problem. Dr. Zimmerman's determination that there is a "potential" problem was made through two techniques. He first used "paired correlation." Based upon paired correlation, Dr. Zimmerman used a "rule of thumb" that a paired correlation of 0.7 or higher should be looked at closer. Finding a paired correlation between physician mix, available services and average occupied beds of .74 and between the Florida price level index and median income of .71, Dr. Zimmerman then calculated "R squared" to determine if a potential problem did in fact exist. Dr. Zimmerman indicated that the calculation of R squared is the most highly recommended method of determining if multicollinearity is a problem but agreed there are other methods of making such a determination. Dr. Meeter indicated that Dr. Zimmerman's rule of thumb that based upon paired correlations of 0.7 or higher indicates the problem should be looked at more closely is too strict. Other than Dr. Zimmerman's "experience" (which according to Dr. Zimmerman, consisted of a class he took), Dr. Zimmerman did not cite any authority which supported his rule of thumb. The only other source Dr. Zimmerman referred to--the "SPSS" manual--only indicates that the .82-1.0 range indicates that extreme collinearity exists. Another problem raised by Dr. Meeter with Dr. Zimmerman's conclusions as to multicollinearity, involves the use of "variance inflation factors" (hereinafter referred to as VIF is another technique used by statisticians to determine if multicollinearity is a problem. Dr. Zimmerman did not look at VIF. VIF can be determined by transforming R squared: VIF 1/1- R2. A VIF in excess of 5 or 10 is an indication that multicollinearity exists. One source quoted by Dr. Meeter even indicates that a much higher VIF is necessary to conclude that multicollinerity exists. Transforming Dr. Zimmerman's R squared calculations indicates that VIF is in excess of 5 in only one instance. As discussed more fully, infra, Dr. Zimmerman used a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals which he designated as "Schemes." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's "Scheme 3," Dr. Zimmerman found an R squared value of .819. The VIF for an R squared value of .819 is in excess of 5. Scheme 3, however, is not an application of the HCCB's grouping methodology; it is a grouping methodology in which the variables are assigned different weights. As indicated by Dr. Meeter, the weights used in grouping can effect the correlation of the variables. Therefore, the fact that Scheme 3 indicates a possible multicollinearity problem does not prove that multicollinearity is in fact a problem with the HCCB's grouping methodology. Based upon the foregoing it is found that multicollinearity does not exist sufficiently to conclude that the variables used by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman only testified that there was a "potential" problem. Additionally, although multicollinearity may invalidate a clustering program, the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's clustering program is in fact invalid because of any existing "potential" problem. In light of the foregoing findings of fact, it is clear that the HCCB's variables are appropriate with the exception of average occupied beds. The fact that this one variable is not statistically significant, however, does not by itself support a finding that the grouping methodology is inappropriate. The Lack of Testing of the Grouping Methodology. A third point raised by Mercy is entitled "Lack of Testing" in its proposed order and includes several proposed findings of fact on pages 17 and 18 of Mercy's proposed order. Mercy has essentially proposed findings of fact that: (1) it had been recommended to the HCCB when it originally adopted its grouping methodology in 1980 that a statistician be hired to test the grouping methodology; (2) that the failure to do so had been criticized in the past; that it had been recommended that the HCCB obtain assistance of individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate the grouping process but had failed to do so; (4) that the HCCB had not, until just prior to the hearing of this case, hired a statistician; (5) that the HCCB has not used multiple regression analysis or within-cluster co- variance weighting; and, (6) that the State of Washington's State Hospital Commission has employed a statistician to test its methodology and has effectively been advised by individuals knowledgeable with Washington's hospital characteristics. These proposed findings of fact do not establish that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious even if they were all correct findings of fact. All that these proposed findings of fact show is that the HCCB may not have gone about the adoption of its grouping methodology in the most appropriate manner. Any such shortcomings, based upon 20/20 hindsight, in the manner in which the methodology was adopted do not prove that the grouping methodology itself is not appropriate. Additionally, the evidence does not support all of these proposed findings. In particular, as was discussed, supra, the HCCB did in fact look to individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate its grouping methodology. The Weight of the Variables. The most significant and troublesome challenge made by Mercy to the HCCB's grouping methodology involves the weights assigned to the variables considered in grouping hospitals. The weights assigned by the HCCB to the seven HCCB variables are: Variable Weight Endogenous: Average occupied beds. 1.0 Available services. 2.0 Physician mix. 0.5 Number of residents. 0.5 Percent Medicare days. 2.0 Exogenous: Florida price level index. 0.5 Personal income. 0.5 The determination of whether the weights selected by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon the evidence presented at the hearing by those witnesses knowledgeable in the field of statistics. Three witnesses were qualified as experts in statistically related fields. All three were well qualified in their fields and were credible and persuasive. According to Dr. Zimmerman, "the weights used currently by the HCCB are clearly inappropriate." In Mercy exhibit 17, Dr. Zimmerman reaches the following conclusion with regard to the HCCB's variable weights: These weights clearly do not reflect the relationship of the various variables to GRAA and thus appear as arbitrary and inappropriate for use in clustering hospitals on the basis of cost-related variables. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion is based upon the use of "multiple regression analysis," which, according to Mercy exhibit 17, "assesses the relationship of each of the predictor variables to the dependent measure (GRAA)." The evidence, however, does not support a finding of fact that multiple regression analysis is the only statistically valid method of establishing weights to be used in clustering analysis. In fact, there are a number of statistically valid methods of establishing variable weights. One of those acceptable methods is the "subjective" method which was used by the HCCB. Doctors Meeter and Fox substantiated this finding of fact. The use of the subjective method involves the participation of individuals knowledgable in the Florida hospital industry in reviewing and commenting on the weights used. The evidence clearly supports a finding that individuals with such knowledge participated in the process of developing the HCCB's grouping methodology including the selection of variable weights. Even one of Mercy's witnesses provided testimony which supports this conclusion: Mr. Kenneth G. McGee testified that "[i] t was just a trial and error process of changing weights until we ended up with something that people considered more reasonable than what had been produced in the past." Mercy has questioned Dr. Meeter's testimony with regard to the use of the subjective method of weighting variables based upon a number of proposed findings of fact. First, Mercy has proposed findings of fact to the effect that Dr. Meeter indicated that the subjective method is "bad" if not carefully applied. What Dr. Meeter actually said was that any method should be applied carefully. Secondly, Mercy has proposed a finding of fact that in a book relied upon by Dr. Meeter in rendering his opinion about the subjective method--John Hardigan's 1975 book, Clustering Algorithms--the author describes the subjective method as an "unsatisfactory" one. What Dr. Meeter's testimony proves is that Hardigan's comment was a tongue- in-cheek comment that there are several appropriate methods of weighting variables all of which are unsatisfactory, including regression analysis (used by Dr. Zimmerman) and the subjective method (use by the HCCB). Dr. Meeter also relied upon other statistical literature in rendering his opinion as to the use of the subjective method in determining variable weights. Finally, Mercy has suggested that Dr. Meeter did not undertake any independent "statistical" analysis which would support his opinions. Based upon the nature of Dr. Meeter's testimony, it does not appear that such a statistical analysis is a prerequisite to concluding that the use of the subjective method is an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Mercy has proposed a finding that the subjective method of weighting is inappropriate based upon Dr. Zimmerman's testimony. Dr. Zimmerman was asked the following questions and gave the following responses concerning the subjective method: Q Now, in your understanding of how the Board arrived at its weights, is it your opinion that that is totally inappropriate methodology for clustering? Yes or no or maybe? A I am looking to counsel for counsel here. MR. PARKER: Do you understand the questions? THE WITNESS: I do understand the question. And let me give you my full answer as I best understand it. The weights -- and I think what I have commented on at great length -- the weights used by the Hospital Cost Containment Board are clearly on statistical grounds inappropriate. There's no question about that. BY MR. COLLETTE: Now, on these clustering grounds, you testified as to your familiarity with clustering grounds, on clustering grounds, are they totally inappropriate? A If the question is -- I wouldn't say that. Hearing that there is no objection, I will continue. I would rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as a final solution for cluster analysis. I think it might be one that would be considered at a very early step, but never used, as kind of a preliminary idea. However, I would clearly rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as something to be proud of and actually put into application. So, if that means yes to your question, I guess yes in that specific way. Dr. Zimmerman's responses are not totally clear with regard to whether the subjective method is, in his opinion, an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Nor would his response, if totally clear, overcome the weight of the evidence in support of a conclusion that the HCCB's method of determining variable weights is not arbitrary and capricious. Alternative Methods of Grouping Hospitals. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact under a section of its proposed order entitled "Alternative Variables and Weights Indicated by Statistical Analyses." Pages 22 to 29 of Mercy's proposed order. Some of the proposed findings included therein have been dealt with in other portions of this Final Order, including those findings of fact dealing with the use of multiple regression analysis and multicollinearity. In Dr. Zimmerman's report (Mercy exhibit 17) and during his testimony a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals were tested and evaluated. Dr. Zimmerman concluded that a number of these alternative methods would be preferable to the methodology adopted by the HCCB. Dr. Zimmerman tested twelve different methods (referred to as "Schemes" by Dr. Zimmerman): the HCCB's, the State of Washington's and ten other methods which used some or all of the seven variables designated by the HCCB. Scheme 3 used all seven variables selected by the HCCB but with different weights. Dr. Zimmerman rejected this scheme because of multicollinearity. In Scheme 4, Dr. Zimmerman used only the four variables which he found to be statistically significant: physician specialties mix, number of residents, percent Medicare days and the Florida price level index. Dr. Zimmerman recognized that this Scheme was not acceptable because of the statutory mandate as to the types of factors which must be taken into account. In order to recognize the requirement of Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that certain variables be taken into account and to alleviate the purported multicollinearity problem, Dr. Zimmerman combined the variables he considered highly correlated into two "scales." "Scale 1" combined physician specialties mix, available services and average occupied beds and "Scale 2" combined the Florida price level index and median income. The weights assigned to these scale were based upon the weights Dr. Zimmerman felt were more appropriate as discussed, supra. Dr. Zimmerman then used multiple regression analysis and a variety of combinations of variables and Scales in Schemes 6-12. Of these Schemes, Dr. Zimmerman testified that Schemes 6 and 10 were preferable, if Scheme 4 could not be used. Scheme 6 involved the use of all of the variables: percent Medicare days, number of residents and Scales 1 and 2. Scheme 10 involved the use of all of the variables except median income: percent Medicare days, number of residents, the Florida price level index and Scale 1. Dr. Zimmerman compared the results of using the HCCB's grouping methodology to the results from using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. The results showed that more Dade County hospitals had GRAA's, in comparison to the hospitals in the resulting groups under Schemes 3,4,6 and 10, which would result in automatic approval of their budgets than under the HCCB's methodology. Mercy's position within its group also improved as a result of using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. These proposed findings of and Mercy's proposed findings of fact concerning alternatives considered by Dr. Meeter do not prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. As found, supra, six of the seven variables selected by the HCCB are reasonable. The weights assigned to those variables have also been found to be reasonable and Mercy's suggested findings of fact with regard to multicollinearity have been rejected. Mercy has failed to prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, any alternative methods or Schemes and the results of using such methods cannot and do not overcome such findings. Conclusions. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the bases for the opinions that the HCCB's grouping methodology is inappropriate are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion, which was based upon a number of conclusions, was only supported by the fact that one of the variables selected by the HCCB is not proper. The evidence, however, does not support a finding that this fact alone means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is inappropriate. The facts do not support a conclusion that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact By its application for a CON filed with HRS (CON No. 2851) Lee Memorial proposes to construct a satellite hospital in the south Fort Myers area (southwest Lee County) and to add 19 new acute care beds which will be located at the satellite hospital along with the requested 81 beds transferred from the Lee Memorial main campus to that satellite hospital. It also proposes demolition and reconstruction of facilities for 120 of its existing beds at the "main campus." Through construction of the proposed satellite hospital and the reconstruction and renovation of its existing main campus, Lee Memorial proposes to provide more efficient and accessible service and improve its overall utilization rate, as well as to improve existing health care services in its service district, in part by providing sufficient private-paying patients, which will be obtained from the more affluent southwest Lee County area, so as to efficaciously enable Lee Memorial to continue to serve the bulk of Lee County's indigent care patients, for whom it is the principal provider at the present time. Additionally, Lee Memorial proposes to provide more efficient, accessible health care services to the people in southwest Lee County, and increase the efficient utilization of beds at the main campus both by the demolition of the present antiquated wings with attendant renovations as well as by construction of the satellite hospital. Mr. Gene Nelson, Administrator of the Office of Community Medical Facilities was accepted as an expert witness in the field of health care planning. He established that the bed need for District VIII, the location of this CON project, is 175 beds. Lee County itself has a bed need of 58 beds including the 19 beds proposed for this satellite hospital, however, the applicant does not propose to limit its service area to Lee County and Lee County patients, which consideration is noteworthy at this juncture since its satellite hospital would be located in southwest Lee County in close proximity to neighboring Collier County. 2/ Southwest Lee County, the area proposed to be served by the satellite hospital and the location of the proposed satellite hospital, is a rapidly growing, urbanizing area characterized by a high percentage of elderly patients. The population is typically more affluent than that of the central Fort Myers' area population which is presently served by Lee Memorial's main facility. This southwest quadrant of Lee County is the most rapidly growing area of the county from a demographic standpoint. The nature and relative affluence of the population in this portion of the county where the satellite hospital would be located will serve to provide a higher percentage of private paying patients in Lee Memorial's patient population mix, such that Lee Memorial, which presently serves the bulk of Lee County's indigent patient population, will be better able to serve increasing numbers of indigent patients by attracting sufficient private paying patients from southwest Lee County so as to cover losses occasioned by indigent patient service. The proposed relocation of beds and addition of 19 new beds at a satellite facility in southwest Lee County will provide more adequate health care services to the people of southwest Lee County and increase the utilization of Lee Memorial's beds in both facilities. The renovation of the facility at the main campus will better and more efficiently provide health care services at that location. The proposed demolition of the existing Cox and Jewitt wings of Lee Memorial's old facility and the redistribution of the 120 beds presently assigned to those wings, and the West wing; to the proposed new "patient tower" will improve the operating efficiency of Lee Memorial's main campus facility. AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY There is no acute care facility presently located in south Lee County and that population presently falls within the service area of Lee Memorial Hospital as well as Fort Myers Community Hospital, a Petitioner herein. Additionally, Gulf Coast Hospital, as mandated by the District Court of Appeal, is to be issued a CON subject to a determination (on remand) of the appropriate number of beds needed for the osteopathic hospital Gulf Coast proposes to construct. In its recent final order in that case, HRS awarded 60 beds. 3/ In any event, no acute care facility is located in the south or southwest portion of Lee County. The travel times to the nearest acute care facility, as established by the travel time analysis conducted by Michael Carroll, a Lee County engineer, range from 17 to 55 minutes from various points in south Lee County to the nearest acute care facility. Locating the proposed satellite hospital in the southwest quadrant of Lee County in the so-called "Iona-MacGregor Planning District" will enhance access to health care services to the predominantly elderly population of that area. Elderly persons, that is persons over 65 years of age, comprise 57 percent of the population of the Iona-MacGregor Planning District, which in turn, constitutes 28.7 percent of the proposed satellite hospital's service area. The proposed satellite hospital will provide access to acute care, in-patient services to a broader percentage of private paying patients. The location of the satellite hospital in the midst of this population which presently must travel 17 to 55 minutes to an acute care facility will enhance availability and accessibility of acute care services to this predominantly elderly population, the elderly being shown to have a higher frequency of need for acute care services per capita. EXTENT OF UTILIZATION The utilization rates of acute care beds at Lee Memorial Hospital have historically fluctuated between 55 and 60 percent occupancy for the fiscal years 1980 through June 1983. The anticipated or projected utilization rates of the satellite facility alone, as to its medical/surgical beds, will increase significantly for the fiscal year 1987 and 1988 to a percentage utilization of 82.1 percent and 85.2 percent for those respective years. It is logical to think that such an increase in utilization will occur, however, since the number of beds available at Lee Memorial's main campus would be reduced by 81 with the installation of the satellite hospital, with only 19 new beds being added to make up the 100 beds for the satellite. The reduced number of beds at the main campus will doubtless have some effect in raising utilization rates at the satellite facility and that, coupled with the rapid growth in population and development of southwest Lee County, militates in favor of these utilization rates projected being reasonably accurate. They were unrefuted. Additionally, utilization rates will be enhanced at Lee Memorial's present facility inasmuch as the proposed project involves reconstruction of the Lee Memorial patient tower and the demolishing and renovation of the Cox, Jewitt and West wings which contain numerous four and six-bed wards. The use of antiquated, larger capacity wards such as those designed for four or six beds hinders the ability of the hospital to flexibly use its bed capacity and as such, lowers the occupancy rate for the hospital. Often patients desire either semi-private or private rooms and if they have any flexibility in the timing of the decision to enter the hospital, will choose to wait until a semi-private or private room is available rather than use a large, open ward. Additionally, wards make flexibility in bed use difficult since some types of patients must be segregated from others and, if four or six of the hospital's beds are committed to one open ward-like room, such segregation of patients is difficult. If only one or two of a particular type patient can be placed together in one ward, often remaining beds therein are unusable, to the hospital's financial detriment. The demolition of the antiquated wings and the concomitant elimination of the four and six-bed wards will enhance the hospital's flexibility in room assignments for patients, thereby enhancing its overall occupancy rate and bed utilization rates. It was established particularly with Mr. Nelson's expert testimony, that elimination of the large wards along with moving the 81 beds to the more rapidly growing area of the southwest county and out of the principal area in which service by Lee Memorial overlaps with FMCH will actually enhance the utilization rates at both Lee Memorial and FMCH. The lower bed capacity at the Lee Memorial main campus, which is much closer to FMCH's facility than will be Lee's satellite hospital, will ultimately have the effect of increasing utilization and occupancy at FMCH, since there will be fewer beds available at its competitor, Lee Memorial's, main campus in the downtown Fort Myers area. So, too, the relocation of the 81 beds to the satellite facility will enhance the occupancy rate and financial health of Lee Memorial's main facility since it will have fewer beds to financially support and a higher occupancy rate with a given number of patients. EFFICIENCY AND IMPROVEMENT IN ADEQUACY OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES AT LEE MEMORIAL The demolition and renovation at the Lee Memorial main campus combined with the construction of additional floors to the main patient tower will enhance the efficiency of Lee Memorial by centralizing patient rooms in relation to the ancillary services and nursing stations within the hospital. The reconstruction and addition to the patient tower will provide more centralized nursing stations and more utility space closer to the patient rooms themselves, thus serving to enhance the hospital's efficiency of operation. The demolition of the Cox and Jewitt wings and, renovation of the West wing was shown to be the most reasonable and logical alternative in relation to merely keeping those antiquated structures in service after refurbishment. Those wings were built in 1938 and presently are in a degenerated condition, such that their continued use amounts to the provision of substandard health care services for patients. Mr. Rowland Hand testified as an expert witness for Lee Memorial in the area of mechanical and electrical engineering. It was thus established that numerous major components of those wings are near the end of their useful life. In the near future, the mechanical and electrical systems of those wings will likely cease to function effectively and the power distribution, emergency power systems and fire alarm systems are presently in a substandard condition. The waste elimination lines, domestic water and chilled water systems, as well as the exhaust air systems presently require expensive, frequent repair work and most of the major mechanical and electrical components in these three wings fail to comply with present municipal and HRS building and mechanical code requirements. The patient rooms and wards in these wings do not each contain a private bathroom in conformity with modern health care practice and requirements, which presents a hardship to patients and constitutes substandard health care. The antiquated four and six bed wards hinder effective bed assignment for patients and render the provision of health care by the hospital, as it relates to these three wings, to be relatively inefficient. The proposed reconstruction and renovation related to these three wings and the expansion of the central patient tower will greatly improve conditions of health care presently provided. The improvements include larger patient rooms, the elimination of ward spaces, the provision of more centralized, efficient nursing stations, additional and more efficiently usable utility spaces and the provision of private baths for patients. The only effective way to accomplish such major improvements, given the present land area available on the main hospital site, is to demolish the wings and to rebuild the spaces required for these patient beds remaining at the main campus. These wings contain 201 beds. If the wings are demolished and an attempt is made to rebuild the space for these 201 beds on the same location on the site, the 201 beds would be totally inoperable for a substantial period of time and would totally disrupt operations, since the 201 beds are nearly half of the licensed capacity at the hospital. Such an approach would clearly be totally unfeasible since there is obviously no way the hospital can continue to provide adequate quality health care if nearly half of its beds are taken out of service for many months. The alternative of performing no renovation or relocation of beds within the same hospital, but rather merely performing a cosmetic refurbishment of the existing wings, (advocated by Mr. Merrill Jones, FMCH's expert in health care construction and construction costs) has only one advantage, that of being a less costly alternative. That cosmetic refurbishment of the existing wings fails to take into account that health care provided in those three wings is already inadequate and Mr. Jones failed to take into account the marked mechanical and electrical deficiencies presently existing in those three wings. Mr. Jones performed no mechanical or electrical inspection nor performed any test or evaluations to determine the adequacy of the present mechanical and electrical systems in the three subject wings. Mr. Jones, in fact, admitted that the cosmetic renovation would not cure the existing mechanical and electrical problems nor cure the problem of inefficiency caused by the use of the antiquated four and six-bed wards which, along with the private and semi- private rooms in those wings, lack the required number of private patient bathrooms. Given the fact that Mr. Jones' testimony was based on a failure to evaluate the present condition of these wings and their various mechanical and electrical systems and given the fact that he acknowledged that the present patient rooms in those wings are too small to comport width modern patient care standards, Mr. Jones' testimony that a cosmetic refurbishment is a less costly and yet feasible alternative to demolition of the wings and addition to the central patient tower must be accorded scant weight in this proceeding. Mr. Jones' other suggestion that the Cox and Jewitt wings be demolished and a reconstruction of the West wing be accomplished by placing a seven-story tower in its place is a somewhat more attractive alternative. However, Mr. Jones never inspected the structure of the West wing to determine whether the existing pilings will support the weight of any additional vertical floors to be added to that wing so as to convert it into a seven-story tower. In fact, the existing pilings supporting the West wing of the hospital would not support a seven-story tower placed on top of the existing West wing and therefore such an alternative is clearly not feasible. Even if the West wing were so reconstructed a severe parking problem for the hospital would still exist. Mr. Jones admitted that a parking garage would still have to be constructed, therefore Mr. Jones' proposal which would require the construction of a parking garage to alleviate the hospital's parking problem if the seven- story tower were placed on the West wing, would still come within approximately $84,000 of the cost of the total Lee Memorial project as proposed. Finally, such a proposal would still only constitute a reconstruction of the Lee Memorial main campus, and would still not address the question of serving the health care needs of the people in the rapidly growing southwest Lee County area who would still have to drive a substantial distance by personal vehicle or emergency vehicle to get to the main campus of Lee Memorial Hospital. In summary, the alternative proposed by Lee Memorial Hospital consisting of reconstructing space for 120 beds at its main campus and relocating 81 beds to the proposed satellite hospital was shown to be the most efficient alternative. Additionally, the cost of this reconstruction does not substantially exceed the cost of the alternative proposed by FMCH's expert, Mr. Jones. The location of the satellite hospital in southwest Lee County will serve to prevent people having to travel long distances to a downtown hospital and, once there, experiencing overcrowding, inadequate parking and inefficient, substandard health care facilities. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Mr. Rufus Harris, an accountant and expert in health care industry accounting and finance, testified on behalf of Lee Memorial regarding the financial feasibility of the proposed project. It was thus established that Lee Memorial, for the pertinent fiscal year of 1988, will have $12,156,000 available for debt service and for the following year, 1989, will have $14,495,000 available for debt service. The required debt service for those two fiscal years, if the proposed project is built, will be 2.7 million dollars. Therefore, the debt coverage ratio is approximately four and one-half times debt service for fiscal year 1988 and 5.4 times actual debt service for fiscal year 1989. It is reasonable and customary in the health care industry and indeed undisputed, that a normal debt coverage ratio is approximately 1.5 times debt service, meaning that funds should be available to a hospital to cover its debt service on an annual basis approximately one and a half times. Thus, even if the utilization rates projected by Lee Memorial are significantly lower in actuality, the hospital's operating ratio will be such that debt service will still be amply covered. The expert testimony of Mr. Harris was substantially unrefuted. Mr. Halvatzis, the expert in health care accounting and financial analysis called by FMCH and Mr. Grossman, a like expert called by Gulf Coast, focused their testimony chiefly on the feared financial detriments to be occasioned to FMCH and Gulf Coast if the application were granted rather than (other than in general, non-specific testimony) directly challenging the showing of financial feasibility accomplished by Mr. Harris. The projected total excess of gross revenues over expenses for the Lee Memorial Hospital after the proposed satellite and renovations are built and operating, attributable to both the main campus hospital operation and the satellite hospital combined is approximately 4.2 million dollars for the year 1988 and approximately 6.1 million for 1989. The income from the combined operations in turn will be approximately 3.7 million for 1988 and 5.5 million for 1989. Aside from the testimony of Mr. Halvatsis and Mr. Grossman, which generally focused on the predicted adverse financial impact upon FMCH and Gulf Coast by a grant of the application, Mr. Grossman in his testimony, decried the fact that no separate financial feasibility study was performed related solely to the satellite hospital and that the proposed satellite hospital would have an adverse financial impact upon Gulf Coast by lowering its occupancy rates and allegedly causing its costs to increase. These issues are only tangentially related to the question of financial feasibility of the applicant's project itself. In this connection, a separate feasibility study was not performed nor necessary because this proposed project is in large part a relocation of beds to a satellite hospital and the construction of the satellite hospital is part of essentially one project involving its construction and the renovation and relocation of beds at Lee Memorial's main campus. The satellite hospital is not intended, nor will it be, an independent free-standing hospital both from a legal ownership or a financial or operational standpoint. Rather, it is dependent upon the stability and viability of the parent hospital and both facilities as ultimately built and reconstructed will be owned and operated by the same legal entity and their financial and accounting operations will be combined, operating as one unified health care provision system. In short, Mr. Halvatsis and Mr. Grossman presented no testimony to demonstrate the financial inability of the proposed project to survive and to provide quality health care on a more efficient basis than Lee Memorial presently provides. The testimony of Mr. Harris and Mr. Gene Nelson, who established the project to be financially feasible, is accepted as more credible and competent on the issue of financial feasibility. Thus it is found that the proposed project can adequately and more efficiently provide quality health care than is the present case for Lee Memorial's system from a financial feasibility standpoint. COMPETITION AND IMPACT UPON EXISTING PROVIDERS In considering the question of adverse impact upon existing health care facilities and providers, it must be remembered that the construction of the Lee Memorial satellite hospital and the renovation project at the main campus, will result in the addition of only 19 beds to the entire bed count for District VIII while concomitantly, moving 81 of Lee Memorial's existing beds to the satellite facility. Both FMCH and Gulf Coast maintain that the satellite hospital, particularly, will occasion an adverse financial impact upon their facilities and operations resulting in reduced patient census and utilization rates and therefore feared increased costs to patients at their facilities because of the reduced patient volume. FMCH is located in the general downtown area of Fort Myers, a substantial and similar distance from the southwest Lee County area involved with the satellite hospital as the distance to Lee Memorial Hospital. Gulf Coast proposes to construct its osteopathic hospital in the same southwest Lee County vicinity as the proposed Lee Memorial satellite hospital although the site has not been definitely selected nor has construction begun. Lee Memorial's proposed project will make its health care provision system more efficient and modern, thus enhancing its ability to provide quality health care to patients and to more effectively compete with other health care providers in serving patients by resulting deterrence of increased health care costs. This will be accomplished by replacing many antiquated, outmoded components with modern up-to-date components and plant and by constructing a more modern, free-standing satellite facility near an area where it hopes to gain more private paying patients for the above reasons. Thus, the project is designed to more effectively compete with other health care providers in Lee County and District VIII. 4/ FMCH called two expert witnesses concerning the issue of alleged adverse impact on its operations. Witness Halvatsis opined that FMCH attracted patients from the southwest Lee County area and that FMCH feared lower utilization and loss of patients from that area if the satellite hospital were installed. FMCH failed to show what percentage of its patient base is derived from south Lee County however, but rather offered testimony of a vague, general nature alluding to feared loss of occupancy, and resulting increased costs, if the proposed Lee Memorial satellite is built and operated. Although FMCH complains of lower occupancy rates, it enjoyed a 68 percent occupancy rate at the time of hearing, which is substantially above the break-even point of profitability. Although Mr. Halvatsis maintains that the reduction in occupancy rates is attributable to a lower patient census, he also admitted that FMCH's budgeting problems result from the application of the diagnosis related group payment method that rewards health care facilities who operate efficiently by only paying a scheduled amount of reitribursement per diagnosis which in turn results in lower average patient stays; which tends to reduce occupancy rates. Thus, FMCH did not demonstrate that feared lower occupancy rates will result chiefly from competition with other providers, including Lee Memorial, as opposed to the "drg" method of reimbursement with concomitant shorter patient stays. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that if Lee Memorial is to continue to successfully finance the majority of indigent cases in Lee County which it presently serves, then it must expand to areas of rapid population growth such as southwest Lee County in order to secure more private paying patients to subsidize its indigent load. This can serve to the advantage of FMCH since it may, in large part, relieve FMCH from undertaking a substantial load of indigent, non-paying cases, such that more of its patient base will be composed of privately paying patients with a concomitant lower rate of bad debt. This consideration, coupled with the fact that no concrete evidence of the percentage of patients for FMCH derived from south or southwest Lee County was presented, renders its expert testimony and evidence concerning feared financial adverse impact by the installation and operation of Lee Memorial's satellite to be largely speculative. Herbert Dorsett, an administrator of FMCH, testified in general terms concerning feared adverse impact on FMCH as well. No study or other objective measure of adverse impact on the financial operations of FMCH was adduced and the expert testimony adduced by Lee Memorial, as well as that of Gene Nelson, established that the relocation of 81 beds to the satellite hospital may actually enhance utilization at FMCH and not adversely impact that facility. That testimony is more substantial and credible and is accepted over that of Mr. Dorsett and Mr. Halvatsis. Gulf Coast Hospital will be an osteopathic hospital facility. Dr. Joseph Piccola, an osteopathic physician who is one of the principal organizers of the Gulf Cost Hospital, established himself that osteopathic medicine and practice is fundamentally different in character and philosophy from the practice of allopathic medicine. The applicant's proposed facility will of course, be an allopathic hospital. It is not likely that Gulf Coast Hospital will participate to any significant degree in the allopathic market, especially with regard to southwest Lee County, nor will the proposed satellite facility of Lee Memorial to which Gulf Coast objects, likely participate to any significant degree in serving osteopathic physicians and patients. It is therefore difficult to find that the installation of the proposed satellite facility of Lee Memorial will adversely affect Gulf Coast's osteopathic patient market share. Gulf Coast in contending that an adverse impact on its market share and utilization will occur, does so with general uncorroborated expert testimony with no reference to any market share analyses or other objective indicators of likely adverse impact, because apparently no such studies were performed. Lee Memorial has four osteopathic doctors who have staff privileges at its hospital, but its osteopathic admissions account for less than two percent of its overall admissions. Specifically, for the ten-month period prior to July 1984, Lee Memorial admitted 222 osteopathic patients out of its total admissions during that time of 16,158. The bulk of the osteopathic patients residing in Lee County are admitted to FMCH when they need hospitalization. The two percent osteopathic admissions rate at Lee Memorial is not expected to increase merely because a satellite hospital will be constructed in southwest Lee County, especially if Gulf Coast's osteopathic hospital is constructed in the same vicinity. In light of this, the assumptions of Mr. Grossman, the expect witness called by Gulf Coast with regard to adverse impact, concerning the number of patients Lee Memorial might draw from Gulf Coast Hospital, are speculative to a great degree. Since the bulk of osteopathic patients in Lee County are presently admitted to FMCH, if any hospital is affected by the installation of Lee's satellite hospital, it would be FMCH that is affected. Since Lee Memorial historically has admitted only two percent of its patients as osteopathic patients, which rate is not likely to increase, it is probable that the installation of the proposed Gulf Coast osteopathic facility will more likely affect osteopathic admissions at FMCH than will the installation of the Lee Memorial satellite. This is so because the majority of Lee County osteopathic physicians presently practice at FMCH. There is a substantial likelihood that many of them will migrate to the osteopathic hospital when it is ultimately built. That being the case, Gulf Coast Hospital will likely draw the bulk of the osteopathic patients in Lee County and surrounding areas. In short, although Gulf Coast decries the feared adverse impact of the proposed satellite hospital on its patient admissions and utilization, Dr. Piccola himself acknowledged that osteopathic medicine is fundamentally different from the practice of allopathic medicine and therefore Gulf Coast failed to show that it will be competing for the same patient market or patient base with the Lee Memorial satellite hospital or that the services proposed by Lee Memorial will be substantially duplicative of its operations. It failed to establish that the installation and operation of the satellite hospital will reduce its patient market share and thus decrease its admissions and utilization. Contrarily, it is quite likely that it will garner a substantial number of the osteopathic patients presently enjoyed by FMCH. Be that as it may, since Basic American Medical, Inc., owns 100 percent of FMCH and 80 percent of the stock of Gulf Coast Hospital, any financial problems related to an unequal distribution of the market share or patient admissions between FMCH and Gulf Coast Hospital can be resolved by Basic American Medical, Inc., through its internal management decisions, cost allocations and modes of operation and support of the two hospitals. COSTS OF PROPOSED-CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERNATIVES Several construction alternatives referenced above were considered by Lee Memorial in an attempt to most cost-effectively modernize, renovate and render more efficient its facilities and services. If Lee Memorial did nothing in the way of renovation or modernization, the 45-year-old existing wings would quickly reach the end of their useful life inasmuch as continual expensive repairs are already necessary to maintain the present substandard level of operations. Continuing to allocate money for repairs to the mechanical and electrical systems which do not meet current codes as well as repair and replacement of other elements of the facilities and equipment in those wings, is not an efficient use of the hospital's financial resources. The total cost of rehabilitation of the wings would be in excess of seven million dollars. If this approach were taken however, each wing would have to be closed for approximately one year, which would occasion the loss of approximately seven million dollars in revenue per year for a total of approximately two years. Furthermore, if the wings were renovated creating larger patient rooms and eliminating the outmoded ward system, Lee Memorial would lose 45 hospital beds on a permanent basis which would result in a loss in excess of three million dollars per year for the indefinite future or, alternatively, the hospital would have to come back to the Department with an additional Certificate of Need application and proceeding at some later time to attempt to restore those 45 beds. Such an additional step to address the present problem would amount to an undertaking of much greater magnitude legally and financially than the present application to add 19 new beds and relocate 81 beds along with attendant renovation and construction. Moreover, a mere renovation/rehabilitation of the three antiquated wings will not solve the problem of those patient beds being at too great a distance from necessary ancillary services within the hospital, nor will it adequately and properly meet the health service needs of the rapidly urbanizing, populating area of southwest Lee County which service has a direct effect on the hospital's continued financial viability. In this connection, the cost of constructing a 250-car parking garage, which is one alternative proposed by the Petitioner would be approximately $1,375,000 which is much more expensive than the demolition of the wings, which will cost approximately $300,000 and would leave room for 244 needed ground level parking spaces. The entire alternative proposed by FMCH, including conversion of the West wing to a seven-story patient tower, would be only $84,000 less than the construction costs for the proposed renovation, relocation and construction of the satellite facility. Further, as discussed above, the FMCH proposed alternative did not take into account the fact that the construction of additional floors on the West wing of the hospital is impossible since the existing pilings will not support them. In short, the proposed construction costs for both the satellite hospital construction and the main campus renovation and reconstruction are reasonable and will render the resulting health care to be provided cost- effectively. The proposal by Lee Memorial presents the most cost effective manner for it to continue to provide the bulk of Lee County's indigent care, to improve bed utilization and to more efficiently serve the needs of the fastest growing sector of the Lee County area. It will allow Lee Memorial to maintain its market share and compete more effectively by having a more modern, efficient facility and, through this competition with other health care providers, ultimately promote the state's policy goal of health care cost deterrence for patients.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services approving the relocation of 81 beds from Lee Memorial Hospital's main campus to the proposed satellite hospital and that the construction of the proposed satellite hospital be approved with the addition, as well, of 19 new acute care beds to that satellite hospital and that the demolition of the Cox and Jewitt wings and renovation of the West wing of Lee Memorial Hospital, accompanied by the reconstruction of capacity for 120 beds on the Lee Memorial main campus as proposed in the instant application be approved and a Certificate of Need be issued to Lee Memorial Hospital accordingly. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 26th day of June 1985.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency”) regarding Certificate of Need (“CON”) Application No. 10202, which sought the establishment of a 100-bed acute care hospital in Broward County, District 10, that had been filed by East Florida Healthcare, LLC (“East Florida”), in the second batching cycle of 2013. The Agency preliminarily denied the application. On December 30, 2013, East Florida filed a petition for formal hearing contesting the denial, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”). In January 2014, the above-named intervenors filed motions to intervene, which were granted. On April 15, Filed April 22, 2014 4:57 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 2014, East Florida filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and the DOAH issued an order closing the file and relinquishing jurisdiction back to the Agency. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT: 1. The denial of CON Application 10202 is upheld. ) ORDERED this 5@Any of pur . 2014, in Tallahassee, Florida. , Secretary Agency For Héalth Care Administration
