Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is responsible for the administration of the Certificate of Need ("CON") program in Florida, pursuant to Section 408.034, Florida Statutes (1992 supp.) AHCA initially published a need for 313 community nursing home beds in the 16 county area encompassing District III on April 17, 1992, which was subsequently corrected and published as a revised total of 321 net bed need for District III. On September 17, 1992, with a cover letter signed by Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA issued notice that it intended to issue: CON No. 6983P to Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare"), for construction of a 60 bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and CON No. 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and, intended to deny, among others: CON 6983 to Unicare for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6989 to Lake Port Properties ("Lake Port") for either the conversion of 60 sheltered nursing beds to 60 community nursing home beds or the conversion of the 60 beds and the construction of an additional 60 community nursing beds to be located in Lake County; CON No. 6991 to Unicare for the addition of 51 community nursing home beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center, in Marion County; CON No. 6992 to Ocala Health Care Associates, G.P., for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds to TimberRidge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Marion County; and CON No. 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. (Southern Medical) for the addition of 60 community nursing beds to Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that all participants have standing, except Heartland. Additional stipulations, accepted during the hearing, in the absence of a representative for Ocala Health Care Associates, are as follows: subsection 408.035 (1)(m) is not in dispute; proposed project costs and design are reasonable; the applicants' Schedules 1, notes and assumptions, the schematics, and the narrative responses to all of objective 4 in each application are in evidence, not in dispute, and are reasonable. The parties also stipulated to the approval of CON 6991 for Unicare to add 51 beds to its New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County, and the denial of CONS 6983 and 6983P to Unicare. LIFE CARE Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), a privately-held corporation established in 1976, by its sole shareholder, Forrest L. Preston, owns, operates or manages 131 nursing homes and 14 retirement centers in 26 states. In Florida, Life Care manages four facilities with superior licenses, located in Altamonte Springs, Punta Gorda, and two in Palm Beach County, Lakeside and Darcy Hall. Life Care also owns, as well as operates, the facility in Altamonte Springs. Life Care owns and operates 28 nursing homes through leases, 6 or 7 of which are capital leases. Under the terms of the capital leases, Life Care is responsible for capital expenditures and projects. Life Care is not responsible for capital expenditures and projects at approximately 91 of its 131 facilities. Life Care proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in the southwest section of Hernando County, near Spring Hill, and to finance the total project cost of approximately $5 1/2 million from bank loans. Life Care has not identified a specific site for its facility. Life Care has proposed to accept a CON condition to provide 75 percent of its patient days to Medicaid beneficiaries, to establish a separate 20-bed wing for Alzheimers and related dementia ("ARD") residents, and to provide intravenous therapy, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, wound care and adult day care. Life Care's proposed Medicaid condition exceeds the 1991 district average of 73.78 percent, and is consistent with its experience in Altamonte Springs of up to 73 percent Medicaid without a CON condition, and over 80 percent Medicaid in West Palm Beach. The Medicaid percentages indicate that Life Care will offer mainly traditional nursing home services. BEVERLY Beverly Enterprises, Inc., the ultimate corporate parent of the applicant, owns 830 nursing homes, with a total of 89,000 beds in 35 states. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., the applicant in this proceeding, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly California Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly Enterprises-Florida ("Beverly") owns 41 of the total 68 nursing homes owned in Florida by Beverly-related companies. Of the 40 nursing homes owned by Beverly at the time the application was filed, 31 had superior licenses. Three facilities had moratoria within the preceding 36 months, one a facility built in 1929, another with a two-week moratorium which is now licensed superior, and a third which is still conditional while physical plant improvements are underway. See, Finding of Facts 28, infra. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Spring Hill, Hernando County, for $5,213,077, with its CON conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of annual patient days to Medicaid residents and a $10,000 grant for gerontology research at Hernando-Pasco Community College. Beverly proposes four beds for a ventilator-dependent unit, two beds for respite care, 20 beds on a separate wing for ARD residents, and to establish an adult care program. Beverly commits to group patients with ARD or other losses in cognitive functioning together in a 20-bed area, to offer subacute rehabilitative care in a 24 bed Medicare skilled nursing unit, and to provide intravenous therapy. Beverly also intends to establish a dedicated four-bed ventilator unit staffed with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience in critical care continuously on duty, a separately staffed adult day care program, and respite care. Beverly's would be the first ventilator beds other than in hospitals and the first licensed adult day care program in Hernando County. One of Beverly's existing Florida nursing homes is Eastbrooke which is also located in Hernando County, approximately 10 miles from the proposed Spring Hill site. Beverly expects its experienced personnel from Eastbrooke to train and assist in establishing Spring Hill. Beverly has identified a site for the Spring Hill facility which is across the street from an acute care hospital. Spring Hill is in southern Hernando County, near Pasco County. UNICARE By stipulation of the parties, the Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") proposal to add 51 beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County was recommended for approval on May 12, 1993. Unicare withdrew its requests for the approval of CONs 6983P and 6983 in Hernando County. As a result, the parties agreed that the number of beds needed was reduced from 321 beds to 270 beds. LAKE PORT Lake Port is a 60-bed licensed skilled nursing center, with a superior rating, located at the Lake Port Properties Continuing Care Retirement Community, in Leesburg, Lake County. Lake Port Properties is a partnership, for which Johnson Simmons Company serves as the managing general partner. The Lake Port community includes independent living residences, a 66-bed adult congregate living facility, and the 60 sheltered nursing beds. Among the services provided are post-operative care and orthopedic rehabilitative therapy for patients who have had knee or hip replacement surgery or shoulder injuries, neurological therapies for stroke injuries, pain management, subacute, open wound and respite care, and hospice services. Lake Port currently has 11 Medicare certified beds, and has had from 8 to 22 Medicare certified beds at a time. Lake Port has a contract with Hospice of Lake-Sumter County to provide interdisciplinary services to approximately five hospice residents a year. Rehabilitation services are also provided by contract at Lake Port. Lake Port has a relatively high volume of residents who are discharged home following intensive therapy within an average of three weeks. As an indicator of the intensity of therapeutic services, Lake Port has provided 26 percent Medicare, while the Lake/Sumter planning area average was 7.2 percent. Life Care projected a Medicare rate of 6.7 percent, Beverly projected 10 percent Medicare, and the Hernando County average is 9.3 percent. In this proceeding, Lake Port proposes either to convert the existing 60 skilled nursing beds to 60 community nursing beds at no cost, or the 60 bed conversion and the approval to construct an additional 60 community nursing home beds, for a total 120-bed community facility at a cost of $1.4 million. Lake Port proposes to have either CON, if approved, conditioned on the provision of 29.2 percent and 33.81 percent Medicaid, in years one and two, and respite, subacute, and intense rehabilitative care. Historically, the payer mix has included 25-30 percent Medicare and 30-35 percent Medicaid. All of the proposed services are provided currently at Lake Port. The effect of the change in licensure categories is to eliminate the requirement that the facility serve exclusively the retirement community residents after five years in operation, or after August 1995. Lake Port would still be obligated to provide nursing home care to Lake Port community residents at discounted costs, pursuant to the terms of their continuing care contracts. Occupancy levels at Lake Port exceed 95 percent, with 7 to 8 percent of patient days attributable to retirement community, and the remainder to patients in a service area which includes West Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port asserts that its financial viability depends on its ability to continue to serve all residents of its service area. SOUTHERN MEDICAL Southern Medical Associates, Inc. ("Southern Medical") is a Florida corporation which owns two nursing homes, one with 60 beds in Okaloosa County and one with 120 beds in Palatka, in Putnam County. Palatka Health Care Center opened with 60 beds in May 1989, added 60 beds in November 1990. Both nursing homes have superior licenses and are managed and staffed by National HealthCorp, L.P., which was founded in 1971, and manages 86 nursing homes, twenty-nine of those in Florida. The management fee is 6 percent of net revenues. In its application for CON number 6993, Southern Medical proposes to add 60 beds to the existing 120-bed nursing home, known as Palatka Health Care Center. Occupancy levels at the Palatka Center ranged between 96 and 99 percent in 1992-1993. Total project costs of $2.1 million will be financed by or through National HealthCorp. Southern Medical proposes that its CON be conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed distinct Alzheimer's wing and the provision of 74 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. Southern Medical provides rehabilitation services in a 14-bed Medicare certified unit, antibiotic intravenous therapy, hospice and respite care. It exceeds the 73 percent Medicaid condition of its CON. SUBSECTION 408.035(1)(a) - NEED IN RELATION TO STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH PLANS The Florida State Health Plan includes 12 preferences to consider in reviewing nursing home CON applications, most of which overlap statutory review criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes. Preference 1 encourages more nursing homes beds in subdistricts with 90 percent or higher occupancy in existing beds. District 3 is not subdistricted, but its nursing home bed occupancy rate was 91 percent in 1991. Therefore, all applicants for nursing homes in District 3 meet the preference. District 3 has been divided into planning areas by the local health council. The applications filed in this proceeding coincide with the planning areas for Hernando, Putnam, and Lake/Sumter Counties. In 1991, occupancy rates averaged 92 percent for Hernando, 96 percent for Putnam, and 93 percent for Lake/Sumter planning areas. Each applicant meets preference 1 using planning areas as substitutes for subdistricts. Preference 2 favors applicants whose Medicaid commitments equal or exceed the subdistrict-wide average. In the absence of subdistricts, the district wide average is used, which is 73.78 percent. Beverly's 74 percent commitment, Life Care's 75 percent commitment, and Southern Medical's 74 percent commitment, entitle them to be favored under preference 2. In addition, Beverly cites its 76.9 percent Medicaid patient days in 1991 at Eastbrooke, but it has failed to achieve its Medicaid commitment at one Florida nursing home in Cape Coral. Lake Port committed to provide a minimum of 33.81 percent Medicaid patient days and argued that it meets the exception to the preference for providing multi-level care. As described in the 1989 Florida State Health Plan, multi-level health systems offer a continuum of care which may range from acute care and ambulatory surgery centers to home health and education, including traditional nursing care. Special emphasis is placed on short-term intensive rehabilitation programs. Although Lake Port's proposal includes some of the features of a multi-level system, such as post-operative rehabilitative therapy and respite care, the Medicaid exception is inappropriate for Lake Port, because the same services are also proposed by Beverly and Southern Medical. See, also, Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Preference 3 relates to providing specialized services, including acquired immune deficiency syndrome ("AIDS") services to residents, ARD residents, and the mentally ill. This preference is met by Beverly, Life Care, and SMA, particularly for ARD patients for which all three applicants proposed to establish separate 20-bed units. The preference is also met by Lake Port, particularly with its emphasis on specialized, intense rehabilitative services. See, also Subsection 408.205(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Preference 4 supports applicants proposing to provide a "continuum of services to community residents," including respite and adult day care. Beverly and Life Care propose to offer both respite and adult day care. Lake Port and Southern Medical propose to provide respite and hospice care. Preference 5, for the construction of facilities which provide maximum comfort and quality of care, was stipulated as being met by all the parties. The applicants also stipulated that project costs and construction plans are reasonable. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(m),(2)(a) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 6 is met by all of the applicants: . . . proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical propose to offer specialized services to ARD residents. Lake Port and Southern Medical emphasize physical rehabilitation. All of the applicants meet the requirements for preference 6. Preference 7 is for applicants whose charges do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, which, for District 3, is $74.05, or $93.49 inflated at 6 percent to 1996. Life Care Care's proposed Medicaid charges are $93.69 for year 1, and $94.46 for year 2. Beverly projected that the average Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict will be $93.49 in 1996, its charge will be $95.00, but it will expect Medicaid reimbursement to be $93.30 for that year. Lake Port projected proposed charges to Medicaid patients as $90 to $93.92 in year one and $93 to $97.37 in year two, for the full 120 beds or the partial 60 beds, respectively. Southern Medical's Medicaid charges will be $90.22 in year one and $94.28 in year two. Preference 8 applies to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs, as indicated by licensure ratings. Of Beverly's 40 Florida facilities, 31 held superior licenses at the time the application was filed. Of the nine Beverly nursing homes with conditional ratings, six are now superior. Renovations or, in the case of one facility built in 1929, construction of a replacement building, are underway at the three others. Life Care, Southern Medical and Lake Port have histories of consistently superior license ratings. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 9 favors applicants proposing staffing levels exceeding minimum standards. Due to the ventilator, intravenous and rehabilitative services proposed, Beverly will staff in excess of that required by the state, with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience on all shifts and a full-time physical therapist. It intends to rely on its current Hernando County facility, Eastbrooke's relationship with Hernando-Pasco Community College, for recruitment and training of staff, although Beverly has not opened a new nursing home in Florida since 1987. Life Care similarly intends to rely on a CON approved facility in adjacent Citrus County. Southern Medical employs St. Augustine Vocational College students who are certified nurse assistants training to become licensed practical nurses, and licensed practical nurses training to become registered nurses are employed at Palatka, which also has internships for health sciences students from the University of North Florida. Its occupational, speech and physical therapists are full-time employees. Lake Port's staffing ratios will also exceed the minimums, in order to provide intensive rehabilitative therapies. See, also Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Each applicant meets preference 10 based on their proposed or current use of a variety of professional disciplines. See, Finding of Fact 29. Preference 11 seeks to ensure resident rights and privacy as well as implementing plans for quality assurance and discharge planning. All of the applicants were shown to follow well established residents' rights and privacy policies, and to have effective quality assurance programs. Pre-admission screening programs include discharge planning. Beverly has the most highly standardized corporate structure of incentives to maintain quality. Preference 12 relates to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the District. Average costs in District III are expected to be $54.79 for resident care and $13.97 for administrative overhead by 1996. Life Care expects resident care costs of $51.97 a day and administrative costs of $17.43 a day. Beverly projects its resident care to cost $61.89, with administrative costs of $8.86. Southern Medical proposes administrative costs of $19.88 per patient day and patient care costs of $46.23 per patient day. Lake Port's administrative costs are expected to be $27.80 for 60 beds or $22.12 for 120 beds, with patient care costs of $43.04 for 60 beds or $45.08 for 120 beds. Beverly, best meets the preference and expects enhanced economics and efficiency from combining some overhead for the operation of two nursing homes in Hernando County. Life Care, however, notes that its proposal enhances competition in view of the existence of one Beverly facility in Hernando County. See, Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(h) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, which also relate to costs, resources, and competition. District III includes 16 west central Florida counties, from Hamilton, Columbia, Union Bradford and Putnam in the North to Hernando, Sumter and Lake in the south. The allocation factors in the plan for District III are prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, the local health council for the district. The district has not been subdivided by agency rule. Using its planning areas, the local health council has given priority rankings for applicants in certain areas of the district. Dixie, Lafayette and Union Counties, which have no nursing homes, are favored by the local plan. If, as in this case, there are no applicants from these counties, Hernando should be favored, followed by Putnam County. No priority was given to Lake County. The council also quantified bed need by planning area for the January 1995 planning horizon, with additional beds needed, ranging from 120 to 180 in Hernando, and up to 60 in Putnam. The parties agree generally that the council may establish planning areas in the discharge of its duties, but they disagree whether the establishment of upper limits, or caps in numeric need by planning area is authorized by law. Section 408.034, Florida Statutes, requires a uniform need methodology, which the agency has established by enacting the nursing home rule, Rule 59C-1.036(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Once the agency determines numeric need for a district and the district driving time standard, the local plan cannot alter these determinations. The local plan also includes certain fundamental principles for the allocation of new beds: (1) to promote geographic access, (2) to consider the locations of at-risk population need factors, and (3) to increase supply based on demand. In order of importance, the local plan lists three allocation factors (1) for counties without nursing homes, (2) for new nursing homes 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing or approved beds, and (3) for locations without approved beds and with existing nursing homes averaging occupancy levels at least 95 percent for the most recent six month or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. With respect to the specific allocation factors, Life Care, Beverly, Southern Medical and Lake Port are in areas with over 90 percent average occupancy within a 20 mile radius. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical are proposing to establish facilities in areas of greater need than that in the area of Lake Port. Hernando and Putnam Counties also have lower ratios of nursing home beds to population than Lake County. The local health council's determination of the greatest need in Hernando County, was confirmed by expert testimony, based on analyzing licensed and approved beds, occupancy rates, distribution of population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, and most importantly, projected growth of population 65 and older, and of 75 and older. The bed to population ratio for Hernando was, in 1992, 15.5 percent for 65 and older, and 44.9 percent for the population 75 and older, both of which are below the ratios for any other planning areas in the District. The projected increase in population 75 and older for the state is 12 percent, in contrast to the projected increase of 38 percent for Hernando County. Expert testimony for Beverly supported the addition of up to 300 beds in Hernando County to bring Hernando County's bed distribution in line with that of the entire district. The only approved provider in the county, Hernando Health Care, has surrendered its CON to add 18 nursing home beds in Hernando County. On the contrary, Heartland's expert calculated numeric need of only 119 additional beds in Hernando County. AHCA, however, gave no consideration to the effect on occupancy, fill- up rates, or financial feasibility of it preliminarily approving all new beds in Hernando County. The experience was compared, by Southern Medical's expert, to that in Clay County, in which 555 beds were 95 percent occupied, prior to the opening of two 120-bed facilities, one in December 1989, and the other in April 1990. At the end of the first year of operation, the facility that opened first was 48.5 percent occupied, the second was 21.7 percent occupied, and district occupancy was 77.7 percent. At the end of the second year, the rates were 81 percent, 55.6 percent, and 85.6 percent. However, by 1992, the nursing homes in that subdistrict averaged 93 percent occupancy. Opponents to the AHCA proposal to locate all new facilities in Hernando County, contend that the bed-to- population ratio or "parity" approach used to support the approval of 240 beds in that county does not take into account demographic variables among the counties in the district. While the bed-to-population ratio is not reliable in and of itself, alternative analyses for the determination of the location of greatest need within the district support the same conclusions. Those analyses relied upon current nursing homes occupancy levels, poverty, and population migration trends and available alternatives to distinguish among the various proposed locations. Based on occupancy levels, the District III counties of greatest need for additional beds are Putnam, Lake and Sumter, and Hernando, in that order. Putnam County residents are being placed in facilities outside the county due to the lack of available nursing home beds. In terms of poverty level and mortality levels, the figures for Putnam and Marion Counties indicated their populations were less healthy than those in Hernando and Lake. Hernando had 6.05 percent of its over 65 population, which is 85 and older, as compared to 9.34 percent in Lake, 8 percent in Putnam, and 8.28 percent as the district average. Hernando and Putnam Counties also had lower percentages of people 75 and older than did Lake and Marion Counties. ALTERNATIVES AND EXISTING NURSING HOMES IN DISTRICT 3 Subsections 408.035(1)(b) and (d) require consideration of other like and existing facilities in the district, as well as health care services which are alternatives to nursing homes. Currently, there are 4 nursing homes in Hernando County, and 12 in Lake County. In Putnam County, there are 3 nursing homes and 15 additional "swing beds," which may be used for acute care or long term care, approved for Putnam Community Hospital. Those beds are not available to serve Medicaid patients and are not included on the inventory of community nursing home beds. In the 511 existing nursing home beds in Hernando, there is an average daily census of 45 beds occupied by residents originating from other counties, while 23 Hernando residents constituted the average daily census leaving the County. Hernando cannot expect to retain in-migrating patients with the development of nursing homes in those residents' counties of origin, particularly, Citrus and Pasco. Given the decrease in nursing home patient days form 1991 to 1992, there is also no reason to expect any significant increase in use rate for the population in Hernando. The most compelling support for need in Hernando County is that the rate of growth of its over 75 population, which is more than three times that of the State. Putnam County has the lowest migration and a greater demand for nursing home services for the population age 85 and older. Putnam County nursing homes exceed 95 percent occupancy. Lake County area nursing homes were 93 percent occupied for the same period of time, and with the relinquishment of an approved CON for 60 beds by Leesburg Regional Hospital, that occupancy rate rises to approximately 95 percent. The award to Leesburg Regional established a need for 60 beds in Lake County, but there is also an approved CON for a 120-bed facility in Mount Dora. According to Lake Port's expert witnesses, the Mount Dora nursing home will not alleviate the need for beds in western Lake County. That facility, owned by the Adventist health group, is expected to be a referral facility from the nearby Adventist Hospital in Orlando and Sanford. Based on the alternative considerations of occupancy levels, poverty and morality rates, the need for additional beds in Putnam County is greater than the need in Lake County. Projected population increases and the limited alternatives also support the conclusion that a greater need exists in Hernando than in Lake County. Heartland of Brooksville ("Heartland"), is an existing 120-bed community nursing home in Brooksville, which is licensed superior. Heartland contends that the virtually simultaneous establishment of both Beverly and Life Care will adversely impact Heartland, and make it difficult for the new nursing homes to meet their projected utilizations. The trend of twice as many people migrating to, as there are leaving Hernando County for nursing home services, will be reversed as more nursing homes are established in surrounding counties. See, Finding of Fact 45. Heartland reasonably expects gradually to lose up to 30 percent of its residents who came from the Spring Hill area, where Beverly and Life Care intend to build new nursing homes. Heartland also reasonably expects to lose Medicare patients among the group from Spring Hill. Medicare residents average 9.3 percent of the total mix in the county, but account for 15 percent of the patient mix at Heartland. Heartland will be adversely affected for at least the first two years if both Life Care and Beverly are approved. See, Finding of Fact 40, supra. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Heartland, Southern Medical and Lake Port assert that Beverly will be successful in Hernando County, but that Life Care will not. Beverly is already established in the county, will provide services not currently available in nursing homes, and will open its facility seven months before Life Care. Life Care projected a net loss of $589,042 in year one, and a net gain of $254,991 in year two of operation. Life Care's projections fail to consider the company's 6.5 percent management fee, income taxes, and Medicaid reimbursement rate ceilings. By contrast to the other proposals and to the Hernando County average of 9.3 percent, Life Care is relying on a payor mix of only 6.7 percent Medicare, the group for which competition will be most intense. That mix parallels its Florida experience, which has historically allowed it to achieve a profit margin of 16 to 22 percent of net revenues in the third year of operation. Life Care's experience and audited financial statements support its contention that it can borrow essentially 100 percent of the funds necessary to support the project and complete the proposed project, a debt arrangement it has successfully used in the past, without defaulting on loans. Life Care's resources are also potentially subject to a $12 to $18 million judgment, due to litigation which is on appeal. Life Care has a contingency fund of $8 million to satisfy the judgment and has sufficient equity in its properties to pay the balance through refinancing. The deficiencies in Life Care's pro forma and its potential liabilities are off-set by the size and strength of the company, and its Hernando County project is financially feasible in the short and long terms. Beverly projects opening at Spring Hill 15 1/2 months after issuance of a CON, reaching 90 percent utilization within 15 months of opening. Beverly reasonably expects an after tax profit of $239,489 in the second year of operation. Beverly estimates project costs of $5.2 million, financed by the parent corporation, Beverly-California. Beverly-California has from $35 to 45 million available to contribute a 40 percent ($2 million) equity investment, and a $35 million loan commitment from which it will draw the balance to finance the project. Southern Medical has a letter of interest for financing of the total project costs of $2.1 million at 12 percent rate of interest by National HealthCorp. During the construction period, Southern Medical estimates that the existing 120 beds will remain 94 percent full, and that the new beds once open will fill at a rate of 10 percent a month, which is consistent with the experience of the management company, National HealthCorp. Southern Medical's actual experience in Palatka was, in fact, better. The first 60 beds were filled after 5 months while the additional 60 beds were filled in 7 to 8 months. Projected revenues of $290,000 during construction, $323,000 after year one, and $488,000 after year two are reasonable. Southern Medical's balance sheet shows short term debt of approximately $1.4 million attributable to the construction of the Okaloosa nursing home. Although Southern Medical secured a $3 million loan commitment for the Okaloosa facility, it has drawn from that account $473,000. That debt will be refinanced and recategorized as long term debt. Southern Medical's project is financially feasible in the short and long term, based on its actual experience in the existing 120-bed facility. Lake Port has the financial resources to construct 60 additional beds for $1.4 million. Lake Port's proposed conversion of the licensure category for its existing 60 beds is at no cost, except for approximately $37,000 in filing and consultants fees. In its third year of operation, Lake Port has achieved 97 percent occupancy. At present, delays of up to a week may be experienced in transfering patients from acute care hospitals to nursing homes in the Leesburg area. From October to May, due to the influx of northerners, beds are generally not available in the Leesburg area of western Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port's projections of occupancy and its financial ability to complete either 60-bed conversion and/or 60-bed addition make either proposal financially feasible in the short or long term.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That AHCA issue CON 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the operation of a 4-bed ventilator-dependent unit, 2 beds for respite care, an adult day care program, and a 20-bed separate unit for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia. That AHCA issue CON 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of a minimum of 75 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, the operation of a 20-bed dedicated wing for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia, and the operation of an adult day care. That AHCA issue CON 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds at Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the establishment of a 20-bed district Alzheimer's wing. That AHCA deny CON 6989P and CON 6989 to Lake Port Properties. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 21st day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6656 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast-Florida, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Finding of Fact 3. 2-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8-10, 24 and 25. 10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 11-15. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 33. 16-19. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 20-21, 37-39. 20-23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 24-30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 32-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 43-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-31. 49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-30. 50-56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 50-51. 57-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29 or 30. 63-64 Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 32, 39 and 46-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 67-68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9-10. 69. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 6. 70-71. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 10. 72-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7, 8-10 and 48-51. 76. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48-49. Petitioner, Southern Medical's, Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. 5-14. Subordinate to preliminary statement. 15. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 16-17. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. 18-19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. 20-22. Rejected in conclusions of law 4. 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 36. 24-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 33-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20-21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 30. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in part in Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 56-57. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 58-60. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 61-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18, 22 and 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. 65-69. Accepted in or Subordinate to Finding of Fact 34 and 43-45. 70-72. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-18 and 22-23. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29-30. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 76-77. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 78-96. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Findings of Fact 34-39 and 45. 100-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 41-42 and 45. 102. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 103-109. Rejected in relevant part and accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 41-45. 110-112. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in conclusions of law 60. 116-120. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. 121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 122-123. Rejected in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. 124-125. Issue not addressed at hearing. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 29. Petitioner, HCR Limited Partnership I d/b/a Heartland of Brooksville's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 5-7. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 12-14. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 16-18. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 40. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 9-16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34-38. 17. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 43. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21, 42 and 43. 23-33. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38, 42 and 43. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 36-41. Accepted in or Subordinate to Findings of Fact 45 and 47. 42-44. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Petitioner, Lake Port Properties's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 40. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and last sentence rejected in preliminary statement. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 7-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 29. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. 30-34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39-43 and 46. 35. Rejected in Finding of Fact 46. 36-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 39-42. Facts accepted, conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 44-46. 43-47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 49-54. Conclusion in first sentence rejected in Finding of Fact 39. Facts accepted in Findings of Facts 39-45. 55-60. Not solely relied upon but not disregarded. Facts generally accepted in Findings of Fact 39-45. 61-74. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 75-82. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 33-38. 83-93. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28-29. 94-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54-55. 101-103. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 54. 104. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. 105-106. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 107-111. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. Remainder of 107-111 accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-38. 112-113. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48, and 49. 114-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 120-121. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 7. 122-125. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and 48. 126-130. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. Respondent, Life Care Centers of America, Inc.'s, Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-43. 10-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 13. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. 14(a-d)-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-40. 21(a-d). Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 23-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 44-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 34-40. Accepted in relevant part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7. 41(a-c). Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 29. 42. Rejected in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Rejected in Findings of Fact 44. 47-48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. 49-50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. 51-54. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 55-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. 63-64. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 65-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-55. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 73-74. Accepted. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 76-77. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40-43. 78-79. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. 82-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 22. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Accepted in conclusions of law. Accepted in preliminary statement. Issue not reached. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Conclusion rejected in Finding of Fact 16. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 21 and conclusions of law 66. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 4. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-18.8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 5-7 and 19-33. Relevant as to availability due to occupancy ratio in Findings of Fact 37-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Accepted, except first sentence in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. Conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 19-32. Accepted facts in 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15 and 19-32. Rejected in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 55. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Manheimer, Attorney Dennis LaRosa, Attorney Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred W. Clark, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James C. Hauser, Attorney Lachlin Waldoch, Attorney Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen Lewis, Goldman & Metz, P.a. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Anton, Attorney Stowell, Anton & Kraemer Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward Labrador, Attorney Richard Patterson, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 W. David Watkins, Attorney Robert Downey, Attorney Oretel, Hoffman, Fernandez, et al. 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Attorney Pennington & Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws. In this case, AHCA projected a need for an additional 295 community nursing home beds in District 3 for the July 1996 planning horizon, and reviewed the applications submitted in response to the published need. A numeric need for 186 beds remains. CON applications are evaluated according to applicable statutory and rule criteria and, as required by Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the preferences and factors in the state and local health plans. The applicable state plan is Toward A Healthier Future - The 1993 State Health Plan. The applicable local health plan is the District Three Health Plan for 1992, with 1993 Allocation Factors, prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council in Gainesville. AHCA has not promulgated a rule subdividing District 3. However, the local planning council has divided the sixteen counties into nursing home planning areas, as follows: Columbia, Hamilton, Suwannee, Bradford, Union and Lafayette Counties; Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, and Levy Counties; Putnam County; Marion County; Citrus County; Hernando County; Lake and Sumter Counties. In this case, one applicant, Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., ("Dixie") proposes to locate in Dixie County in planning area 2 or (b). Hilliard HealthCare, Inc., ("Hilliard"), Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., ("Unicare"), Life Care Centers of America, Inc., ("Life Care") and Beverly Enterprises- Florida, Inc., ("Beverly") propose to construct nursing homes in planning area 7 or (g). Within planning area 7, Hilliard would build a nursing home in Sumter County, while Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly would build in Lake County. The total population in planning area 2 is approximately 230,000, and in planning area 7, approximately 180,000. More relevant to a determination of need for a nursing home, the population age 65 and over in planning area 2 is approximately 25,000, as compared to 49,000 in planning area 7. Within planning area 2, the projected Dixie County population over 65 in the year 2000 is 2,211, while the Sumter County projection is 9,824 residents. The actual 1994 population age 75 and over was 644 in Dixie, and 3,296 in Sumter County, and over 20,000 in Lake County. Currently, there are 1,238 licensed and approved beds in planning area 2, and 1,391 in planning area 7. For planning area 2, which includes Dixie County, there are 22 people age 65 and over for each nursing home bed. In planning area 7, the ratio is 41.1 to one. If 120 beds are added in Lake County, the comparable county ratio will decrease from 41.4 to 37.6 persons 65 and over to a bed. The addition of 60 beds in Sumter County will result in a decline in the county from 39.5 to ratio of 30.7 to 1. The district-wide ratio for District 3 is 34.5 persons 65 and over for every nursing home bed. The local planning council has compared the relative need for nursing home beds by planning area, according to a Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation Matrix ("PANHAM"). Using a comparison of the percent of population age 75 and over to the percent of district beds in each planning area, the local health council describes planning area 7 as high need/moderate occupancy. It is ranked the planning area of greatest need for this CON application cycle. Planning area 2 is described as an area of low need/high occupancy. It also ranked as an area of priority in this cycle, although lower than planning area 7. The local health council has adopted three factors for use in making more specific determinations of locations which will best meet unmet needs within a planning area. Ranked in order of priority, the factors are: the absence of nursing homes in the same county, a location more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from any other nursing home, and an area in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months or 95 percent for the most recent six months. There is no evidence that construction of new nursing home beds is not needed or that the need is based on any inefficiency or quality of care problems in existing nursing homes. Consideration of the availability, utilization, and adequacy of other nursing homes and alternative health care providers in the district is also mandated by statute. See, e.g. Subsections 408.035(1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c), and (2)(d), Florida Statutes. In this group of applicants, only Dixie is favored by the first local health council factor for proposing to locate in a county in which there are no existing or approved nursing homes. Dixie does not meet the preference for a location more than 20 miles or a 25 minute drive from the closest nursing home. Dixie's expert witness who believed the drive took more than 25 minutes lacked direct knowledge of the road conditions. By contrast, the deposition testimony of the administrator of Tri-County Nursing Home established that the drive from Tri-County to Cross City takes about 15 minutes, most of it on a four lane highway, U.S. 27. Tri-County in Wilcox near Fanning Springs, and Medic-Ayers in Trenton are both within 20 miles or 25 minutes drive of the proposed Dixie site. Their occupancy rates for the first six months of 1993 were 94.41 percent and 95.85 percent, respectively, or an average of 95.13 percent. Therefore, Dixie is extremely close to meeting the local allocation factor related to existing nursing home occupancies in excess of 95 percent for the January-June 1993. By contrast, there are 12 existing and approved nursing homes in Lake County, and one in Sumter County. Occupancy rates in Lake County averaged 91.7 percent, but the facility in Sumter County reported 99.13 percent occupancy in the 1992-1993 reporting period. Applicants in Lake and Sumter Counties are not favored for proposing locations in counties without nursing homes, or for locations more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing nursing homes. Lake County applicants also do not meet the preference for an area defined by a 20-mile radius in which average occupancy rates exceeded 95 percent for the most recent six months or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. The Sumter County applicant, Hilliard, does meet the occupancy requirement for a location in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months. Because the state rule methodology results in a positive need calculation, the local health council factor related to special circumstances in the absence of numeric need is inapplicable to this case. Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., Cross City, Dixie County Dixie is seeking AHCA's issuance of CON 7492 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Cross City, Dixie County, which is in planning area 2. If issued a CON, Dixie offers to be bound by the following conditions: to construct the nursing home on a specific site in Cross City; to provide 80 percent of its total resident days to Medicaid-reimbursed residents by the second year, with all beds certified for Medicaid and 9 beds certified for Medicare reimbursement; to provide rehabilitative, respite, and adult day care, with transportation for some day care participants; and not to deny HIV+ admissions. At the time that Dixie filed the letter of intent for the 60-bed project in Dixie County, it also submitted three others for contiguous areas of District 3. Thus, four legal notices, for projects in Alachua, Gilchrist, Levy and Dixie Counties were submitted by fax and then by mail to the Gainesville Sun newspaper for publication. All four legal notices, when published, referred to Levy County, as the proposed location of the nursing home. The proof of publication sent by the newspaper to the applicant and included in the CON application states that the notice published was for Dixie County, although the notice itself states that the project will be in Levy County. Dixie's health care planning expert requested the publication of a corrected notice, but there is no evidence that one ever appeared in the newspaper. AHCA accepts CON applications, despite publication errors, if the error is made by a newspaper, not by the applicant. Dixie is a partnership formed to file the application for CON 7492. The project will be funded by Smith/Packett Med-Com, Inc. Smith/Packett is owned by James R. Smith, who with Herbert H. Frazier, is a general partner in Dixie Health Care Center, Limited Partnership. Herbert Frazier is an employee of a Florida licensed general contractor, MB Conn Construction, and president of its Frazier Division which oversees the construction of nursing homes. Separately, the two general partners in Dixie own over 20 nursing homes, and jointly own one in Virginia and one in North Carolina. The partners owned, but, in February 1994, sold a Lake City nursing home. The estimated total project cost is approximately $3,000,000, of which the general partners will provide $250,000 in cash for project development costs and initial cash flow requirements, as noted in the application in the schedule 3 assumptions. Dixie included in its application a letter of interest in financing the project from Colonial Bank, Alabama. Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site for the project for $33,000. As previously noted, Dixie meets the highest priority local allocation factor for proposing to locate in a county which has no nursing homes, and is close to the factor for over 95 percent average occupancy rates in the nearest nursing homes. Dixie is also favored by the local plan for proposing to construct at least 60 beds, for improving access within the planning area, and for proposing respite care, adult day care, and rehabilitative therapies. Dixie meets state health plan preferences for proposing the following: to locate in a subdistrict with over 90 percent occupancy (93.42 percent for plan- ning area 2); to serve 80 percent Medicaid, which is in excess of the subdistrict average of 79.37 percent in the first six months of 1993, for specialized services to AIDS, Alzheimers' and mentally ill patients, to provide a continuum of services including long term, respite, and adult day care; to construct a well-designed facility to maximize resident comfort and quality or care, which is a reasonable size and meets all licensure requirements; to provide rehabilitative and restorative therapies, to establish a Medicaid reimbursement rate of $91.75 in year one and $94.65 in year two, as compared to the projected subdistrict high of $92.83 in 1995 and $96.54 in 1996 (using an annual 4 percent inflation rate from the January 1994 rate); * * * to offer multi-disciplinary services to residents, with the various therapist, social workers, and counselors; to document protection for residents rights and privacy, and to establish resident's councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs, as SunQuest and all other nursing homes operating in Florida must do by state laws; to operate with lower administrative costs and higher patient care costs than the average in the district ($21.61 and $51.33 respectively in year two (1996), in contrast to $22.02 and $41.62 in 1992 for the respective average district per diem costs); Questions were raised about Dixie's compliance with state factors (8) for providing superior resident care in existing facilities, and (9) for staffing ratios which exceed minimum state requirements and are appropriate for proposed special services. The proposal is substantially based on the assumption that the applicant will contract with SunQuest for management services. Although the application refers to a management contract with SunQuest, no contract has been executed, which is not unusual prior to the issuance of a CON. At the final hearing, however, Dixie contended that SunQuest is only one of the candidates for a management contract, while conceding that the management policies and procedures in its application are those of SunQuest. In fact, the Dixie application states in response to state allocation factor (9) that SunQuest will be the management company. SunQuest manages 10 and leases an additional 10 long term care facilities in the United States, two in Florida. One of the Florida nursing homes, Bayshore Convalescent Center in North Miami Beach, has a superior license. SunQuest also manages the Lake City Extended Care Center, which was built by the company which employs Mr. Frazier, began accepting residents in December 1993, and was sold by the Dixie general partners in approximately February 1994. The original holder of the Lake City CON became unable to develop the proposal and contacted Mr. Smith and Mr. Frazier just prior to the expiration of the CON. They acquired the CON, financed, designed, and constructed the nursing home. Lake City currently operates with a conditional license, as a result of medical record-keeping deficiencies. The testimony, by Dixie's corporate representative, that SunQuest is merely one management company candidate along with Senior Care Properties, is inconsistent with the totality of the proposal, which renders significantly less reliable the program descriptions in the original application. Dixie's intent to provide van transportation for adult day care participants was also questioned, due to the absence of any provision for the service in the financial schedules to the application. The financial feasibility of Dixie's proposal is also a matter at issue. Although Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site, the architect who designed the facility testified he had constructed a 120-bed two-story nursing home on less than two acres, but that two and a half to three acres are generally needed to construct a 60-bed facility. Dixie projected a net loss of $201,813 in the first year of operation and a net profit of $55,123 by the end of the second year. The general partners have committed to provide $250,000 to cover the first year negative cash flow. However, the average annual salaries projected when multiplied by number of full time equivalent ("F.T.E.") positions listed on schedule 6 of its application exceeds salaries listed in the projected income and expenses on schedule 11 by approximately $219,866 in year one and $51,694 in year two. Including the underestimate of related benefits, the loss expected in the second year is $8,759. Dixie maintains that the staffing on schedule 6 cannot be compared to the pro forma, because the staffing and related expenses in the pro forma will increase over the first year as the census increases, while the staffing schedule is a snapshot at the end of the first year. The same is not true for the second year, since the facility is projected to be full after 8 months. Dixie's expert on finance described the second year discrepancy between a $50,000 profit and an $8,700 loss as insignificant in determining the financial viability of a $2 million project which, taking into consideration depreciation, amortization, and noncash related items, still results in a positive cash flow. Dixie's financial feasibility also depends on its reaching 96 percent occupancy by the fourth quarter of the first year. One witness for Dixie has achieved 93 percent occupancy in similar facilities in a county he deemed comparable, but has operated his facilities since 1989. Dixie also has to contend with competition for residents and staff from a relatively new facility within 20 miles and a 25 minute drive, Tri-County Nursing Home. Tri-County Nursing Home in Gilchrist County opened in May 1992, close to the Gilchrist- Dixie line, serving residents of Levy, Gilchrist and Dixie Counties. Approximately 30 of its 60 beds are occupied by Dixie County residents, all of whom rely on Medicaid reimbursement. Tri-County is also establishing a 25 person adult day care, having completed the required state inspection and awaiting the issuance of its license. After 8 months of operation, 51 of the 60 beds were filled. In June of 1993, Tri-County was full, with 98 percent occupancy. Approximately 40 percent of Tri-County's staff resides in Dixie County. There was testimony that 41 registered nurses reside in Dixie County, but with no information concerning their distribution within the county, current employment, or ages, their availability to work at a new nursing home could not be evaluated. In Gilchrist County, the ratio of persons 65 and over to nursing home beds is 8.7 to 1, in contrast to 31.46 for Levy County, and 34.5 for the district. The data supports the conclusion that Tri-County relies on service to Dixie County residents, clearly has an insufficient population base within Gilchrist County to fill its beds, and even when combined with Levy County is below the district ratio of 34.5 persons over 65 per nursing home bed. AHCA's expert in health planning and nursing home financial feasibility testified that Tri-County has had financial difficulties. On balance, Dixie has failed to demonstrate that it has estimated reasonable land requirements and costs, and that it can meet the required occupancy and staffing levels to survive financially, without adversely affecting Tri-County. Hilliard Healthcare, Inc., Bushnell, Sumter County Hilliard is the applicant for CON 7485 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Bushnell, Sumter County, which is in planning area 7. Hilliard's CON, if issued, will commit to construction of Osprey Point Nursing Center on a specific five acre site on State Road 475, and to the establishment of a 10-bed Medicare unit, and a 20-bed secure Alzheimers' unit, with all beds Medicare and Medicaid certified. Hilliard commits to providing 64 percent of total resident days for Medicaid. The total estimated project cost is $2,650,000, funded by $650,000 cash from stockholders and $2,000,000 in loans from Bankers First. Hilliard, formed in 1987, currently owns a superior licensed 120-bed facility in Nassau County, having completed a 60-bed expansion in September 1994. The Nassau County nursing home is managed by Health Care Managers ("HCM"), which is owned by Steven Sell, Hilliard's president and founder. Mr. Sell, in partnership with three others, first acquired a 55-bed facility in Jacksonville in 1984, expanded it to 120 beds in 1988, and sold it in 1994 for a profit of approximately $2.5 million. In 1991, Hilliard's president also received a CON to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Clay County, which was sold without a profit, but at a break-even point, while it was under construction. HCM is the intended manager of the Bushnell facility, if the CON is approved. Hilliard submitted a notice of its intent to file a CON application to the Sumter County Times newspaper for publication. The notice, published in November of 1993, stated erroneously that the application would be filed on December 1, 1992, rather than December 1, 1993. Hilliard's president testified that he knows for a fact that he submitted the notice with the correct date, but no document in evidence establishes what Hilliard submitted to the Sumter County Times. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the local health council factors for a location in a county without nursing homes, nor is Bushnell more than a 20 mile radius or 25 minute drive from existing nursing homes. It does merit consideration under the factor which relates to the occupancy of nursing homes within a 20 mile radius, all of which exceeded 90 percent from July 1992 - June 1993, ranging from 90.89 to 99.13 percent. The highest rate was at WeCare, the only other nursing home in Sumter County, which is located in Wildwood, in the northern area of Sumter County. WeCare has two fifteen-bed Alzheimers' units, and unchallenged CON approval to add 30 beds. The approval of the 30 additional beds at WeCare raises the bed to population ratio of Sumter County from 20.2 to 23.5 per 1000, in contrast to the current Lake County ratios of 22.4. With the approval of 60 beds at Hilliard and another 120 beds in Lake County, the ratios are increased to 30.2 in Sumter and 24.7 in Lake County. After approval of WeCare's addition, the need in Sumter County has been decreased. Hilliard, by its proposal to serve central and southern sections of Sumter County, would improve access within the planning area. The occupancy rate for Medicare patients at WeCare was 1.1 percent. Hilliard contends that the relatively low percentage of Medicare services indicates a need for short-term, post-hospitalization rehabilitation services, as proposed in its 10-bed Medicare unit. Hilliard demonstrated that average lengths of hospital stays for Sumter County residents for certain procedures exceed national Medicare reimbursement averages, but there was no comparison to average lengths of stay within the district or the state. Other local health council allocation factors which apply to and favor Hilliard's proposal are those for: establishing a facility of at least 60 beds, improving access within a planning area with over 80 percent occupancy, and serving Alzheimers' and dementia patients. Hilliard's proposal meets state preferences for: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (95.42 percent for planning area 7); * * * providing specialized services to Alzheimers' residents; offering respite care (although limited to hospice services); designing a comfortable facility, with short corridor segments, relatively large therapy areas, and a separate enclosed courtyard for the Alzheimers' unit; proposing occupational, speech and physical therapies, particularly to enhance the functioning of Alzheimers' residents; setting Medicaid rates of $101.90 for 1996 and $104.13 for 1998, in contrast to the highest rates projected for the same time, $107.89 and $113.28, respectively (using 5 percent inflation); providing superior resident care at its existing Nassau County Nursing home; proposing staffing ratios in excess of minimum state requirements, with reasonable salaries; including multi-disciplinary staff, including occupational, speech, and physical therapists, as well as nurses and an activities director; protecting residents' rights and privacy, and developing quality assurance and discharge planning programs; and proposing lower administrative costs ($26.35) with higher patient care costs ($64.30) than the district average of $26.63 and $54.67, respectively (1977 projection with 5 percent inflation). Hilliard does not meet state preference 2 for service to Medicaid proportionate to the subdistrict average, which is 69.95 percent, in contrast to Hilliard's proposed commitment of 64 percent. Under the preference, Hilliard's proposal to emphasize Medicare reimbursed therapies does not relieve it of the obligation to serve a proportionate share of Medicaid. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the specific exceptions allowed in preference 2 for applicants proposing to serve particular ethnic or cultural groups, and those developing multi-level care systems. Hilliard has a commitment letter from Banker's First to provide a $2 million loan for a fee of 1 1/2 to 2 percent of the principal loan amount, or $30,000 to $40,000. In schedule 1 of the application Hilliard's estimate of closing costs in $10,000, with $4,120 in legal fees. Dixie's expert claimed that the closing cost was inconsistent with the Banker's First letter and unreasonably low. By contrast for a $3 million loan, Dixie estimated $10,000 for loan closing costs, $30,000 for legal fees, $10,000 for recording fees and taxes, and $60,000 in loan origination fees. Dixie's expert apparently overlooked an additional $20,000 in origination fees, which was included on Hilliard's schedule 1. Hilliard projects a loss of $177,000 in year one, and income from nursing home operations of $114,690 in year two. In the first year, a loan of $271,660 is expected to cover the losses in year one. In the second year, a pay off of $154,940 on the loan is expected. The financial ability of Hilliard's shareholders to provide the initial $650,000 equity contribution and $271,660 to cover first year losses was questioned. Hilliard's president noted that the shareholders previously raised in excess of $600,000 to develop the Nassau County facility and have received $2.5 million in profits from the sale of the Jacksonville nursing home. Personal financial statements of three of the six stockholders were included in Hilliard's application. The personal financial statements were incomplete, omitting referenced attachments. The statements were also inaccurate or inconsistent, with missing liabilities, discrepancies regarding property values, and including the total value of some property which was not owned by the shareholders individually. Nevertheless, the statements do, according to Dixie's expert, show that the shareholders could provide over $900,000 in capital needed for Hilliard to be financially feasible, although that would take virtually all of the liquid assets, unless they assumed some additional individual debts. On balance, Hilliard has shown that Sumter County is more likely than not in need of additional Medicare-reimbursed subacute services, and that its proposal is financially feasible based on the shareholders' history of being able to raise capital for similar development projects. Lake County Applicants Three applicants in this batch seek to construct new 115 or 120-bed nursing homes in Lake County. Given the remaining numeric need for 186 beds, only one of the applicants can be approved. See, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., et al. v. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 92-6656 (F.O. 10/17/94). In addition, the District 3 Allocation Factors Report Preferences includes the following guideline: To the extent possible, all planning areas ranked in one of the four categories of priority established in subparagraph d above should be approved to add some new beds. Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., Lady Lake, Lake County Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") is an applicant for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home or to receive a partial award to construct a 115-bed community nursing home in the town of Lady Lake, in northwest Lake County. Unicare proposes to have its CON conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed Alzheimers' and related dementia unit, an adult day care to accommodate an additional 20 Alzheimers' sufferers for half day care, and on providing 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents. Unicare also plans to include a 10-bed subacute unit, and to offer rehabilitative therapies, respite and hospice care. The total size of the building is 58,700 square feet. Unicare is a subsidiary of United Health, Inc., which is committed to finance the project by providing an equity contribution of 60 percent and drawing on its available line of credit for the remaining 40 percent of the total projected cost of $5,754,983. Unicare owns and operates 45 nursing homes in 7 states, has been in business for 28 years and in Florida since 1982, and currently owns and operates 13 Florida nursing homes. Life Care Centers of America Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care") proposes to establish a 120-bed community nursing home of 53,175 square feet, in west central Lake County, in the areas of Lady Lake, Tavares, or Leesburg, for a total project cost of $5,906,000. Life Care's CON, if issued, will include its commitment to provide 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, to establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit, to offer adult day care services, and to include a 20-bed sub-acute unit. Life Care is a privately held company operating 150 nursing homes in 27 states. Life Care owns two and operates three other nursing homes in Florida. Life Care proposes to fund the Lake County nursing home from $206,000 cash-on-hand and $5,700,000 in financing from a non-related company. With its application, Life Care submitted letters of interest from potential lenders with interest rates ranging from 9 to 12 percent, and a 25 year amortization schedule. In reviewing other Life Care applications, AHCA has considered and rejected as incomplete a list of capital projects identical to that included in this Lake County application. Specifically, Life Care listed projects by county name, although the total amount of capital obligations, according to AHCA, was significantly underestimated. Life Care submitted, at hearing, its exhibit 6, a stipulation to certain facts and, through the testimony of its Vice President for Development, established that the facts related to the schedule 2 issues in this case are identical to those considered in Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. Agency For Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 94-2409 (F.O. 10/24/94), which is pending on appeal in the district court. Beverly Enterprises Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly") is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Corporation-California, a subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lady Lake or Leesburg, in Lake County, with a commitment to provide 73 percent of total annual resident days for Medicaid, to establish a 20-bed Medicare-certified subacute unit with 4 beds for ventilator-dependent patients, an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, an adult day care for 8 clients, respite care, and to accept and care for residents who are HIV positive, or have mental health disorders. Beverly also will commit to donate $10,000 for gerontological research. Beverly Enterprises companies operate 720 nursing homes, 70 in Florida. Of the 70, 41 are operated by the applicant. Beverly's proposal to establish Lake Beverly Terrace has a total project cost of $5,421,372, for 48,969 square feet. Existing Nursing Home and Alternatives - Sections 408.035(1)(b), and (2), Florida Statutes. As of January 1994, there were 460 nursing home beds in Leesburg, 142 in Clermont, 236 in Mount Dora and 377 in Eustis. All of the facilities, exceeded the average Lake County occupancy of approximately 92 percent in 1992- 1993, except two, Waterman Hospital Extended Care Center in Eustis and Edgewater in Mount Dora. All of the parties agreed that additional subacute and Alzheimers' beds, and adult day care spaces are needed in Lake County. Local and State Health Plans - Sections 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly propose to locate in Lake County, within planning area 7 for Lake/Sumter Counties. The planning area has a higher priority need ranking than planning area 2, as determined by the local health plan council. Local allocation factors 1 - 5 apply equally, or are inapplicable to the three proposals. There are existing nursing homes in the county, which are within 20 miles or 25 minutes all of the proposed locations, and which exceeded 90 percent occupancy. Unicare distinguishes its proposal based on its intention to locate in the town of Lady Lake, rather than further contributing to the concentration of nursing homes in Leesburg. Lady Lake was, in 1990, the third largest municipality in Lake County, and projected to be the largest in 2000. The 1990- 2000 projected growth rate is over 100 percent, in contrast to 13 percent for Leesburg, 50 percent for Tavares, and 37 percent for the entire county. Lady Lake was also mentioned in the Life Care and Beverly applications as a possible location for their facility, along with other towns in Lake County. Beverly's Vice President has investigated the cost of sites only in Leesburg, Fruitland Park, and Eustis, but concedes that Leesburg is a desirable location due to its proximity to the hospital. Without a CON condition, which AHCA could impose, all three applicants could locate anywhere within Lake County. Although Lady Lake is only 8 miles from Leesburg, Unicare's proposal, all other factors being equal, would be favored as more consistent with local allocation factor 6, which discourages the concentration of nursing homes in one community within a multi- county planning area. The final local allocation factor, 7 (as related to Alzheimers' and adult day care), as well as state health plan factors 3 (as related to Alzheimers') and 4 (as related to adult day care), and subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes, favor applicants proposing specialized care or therapies to meet the needs of community and nursing home residents suffering from Alzheimers' and related forms of dementia. Unicare's 20-bed Alzheimers' unit and programs, and half day adult day care for 20 additional Alzheimers' sufferers are consistent with the specialized services that are needed. Life Care also proposes, as conditions for its CON, that it will establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit and an adult day care center to accommodate 10 participants a day, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Beverly proposes to provide services in an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, and an 8-person adult day care program. State health plan allocation factors met by all of the Lake County applicants include the following: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (approximately 92 percent for planning area 7 for January-June 1993); see, also Subsection 408.035(1)(b), (d), and (2) (a) - (d); proposing to serve 73 percent Medicaid- reimbursed residents in comparison to the subdistrict average of 72.65 percent in the first six month of 1993; and * * * (11) documenting measures and procedures to protect resident's rights and privacy, and the use of resident councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs. The Lake County applicants' proposals differ more when compared in accordance with state health plan factors and related statutory criteria, for: services to AIDS residents and the mentally ill; respite care, adult day care, and other services in a continuum of care (Sections 408.035(1)(o), F.S.); facilities with designs which maximize residents' comfort and the quality of care, and the costs and methods of construction (Sections 408.035(l)(m), F.S.); innovative therapeutic programs to enhance mental and physical functioning; charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict (Sections 408.035(2)(e), F.S.); a record of providing superior care in existing nursing homes (Sections 408.035)(1)(c), F.S.); staffing in excess of minimum requirements, with the highest ratio of registered and licensed practical nurses to residents (Sections 408.035)(1)(h), F.S. - availability of staff and personnel); use of professionals from a variety of disciplines; and * * * (12) administrative cost which are lower patient care costs which are higher than the district average. State health plan preference 3 is given to applicants for care to AIDS residents and the mentally ill, and state health plan 4, in part, applies to respite care. Beverly points to its increase in service to HIV positive patients from 39 patients for 124 patient days in 1993 to 3500 patient days in 1994. Unicare also has served AIDS residents. All of the Lake County applicants plan to offer respite care. Beverly offers a wider array of specialized services. By providing a range of levels of care to inpatients and outpatients, including adult day care and respite care, the applicants also, in part, meet the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes. Nursing homes with more features to enhance resident comfort and quality of care are given state health plan preference 5. Unicare's 58,720 square foot plan, includes semi-private patient rooms designed for the placement of the heads of residents' beds on opposite walls, each side with a window, rather than the alignment of beds next to each other, typical of semi-private hospital rooms. The plan includes indoor wandering space for Alzheimers' residents in a loop around an activity and recreation area, separated by a 3 to 4 foot wall. The Alzheimers' unit has a separate dining room with access to a secured courtyard, which, in turn, connects with the day care center. AHCA's architectural report notes that the construction cost of $60 per gross square foot is below the median cost projection, because Unicare will use a design/build contract. The design/build contract provides for one contractor to provide all of the services, including architectural and design, engineering and construction management, which saves time and money. Unicare's contractor, KM Development Corporation, has been in business since 1977, and has renovated and enlarged Unicare's facilities in Florida without cost overruns, and has done residential construction in the state. Unicare's design, based on the AHCA architectural review and the contractor's testimony, meets requirements for licensure and safety, and is a one-hour fire safety protected structure with a stucco finish, and brick and wood trim. Although skeptical and concerned that the design/build contract can be manipulated to cut corners to stay within budget, AHCA's expert in architecture testified that it is possible for Unicare to build the facility at the projected cost, but he would expect a cost over- run. Life Care's 53,175 square foot building will cost $75 a square foot. AHCA's architects described it as wings organized around a central courtyard, providing good visual control of short corridors. Life Care's design also includes a gift shop, library, and ice cream parlor. A separate wing for Alzheimers residents is adjacent to the adult day care center, with a separate dining room and courtyard. The institutional effect of corridors is decreased by using recessed entrances and doors to residents' rooms. There were no concerns expressed by architectural experts with the appropriateness of the design for the functions in each wing, the adequacy of the project cost, or the safety of the structure. Beverly's construction cost per gross square feet, listed as $63 on line I in response to question 4A was challenged as too low by Life Care's experts. Beverly's construction cost plus a 10 percent contingency or $70 a square foot for 48,969 square feet is considered reasonable by AHCA, although that eliminates the availability of the contingency for unknown conditions on an unselected site. Beverly's design is organized generally around a core area of courtyards with therapy space in the center. Beverly's Alzheimers' unit has a separate courtyard which allows wandering residents to exit a door near one end of the corridor and return by a door near the opposite end. AHCA's architectural review concludes that Beverly's design meets licensure and safety requirements. In general, Unicare's design better meets the preference for enhancing resident comfort and quality of care with rooms over 30 percent larger than required, four outside landscaped areas, physical therapy rooms, and three staff lounges, and an in-service training area, but its cost may be underestimated. Life Care's design is second in terms of accommodating program needs with space arrangements. Adult day care clients with Alzheimers, for example, are located adjacent to the area for Alzheimers residents' programs and activities. Life Care's projected construction costs are also the highest. Innovative therapeutic programs effective in enhancing physical and mental functions are favored in state health plan preference 6. Unicare will provide physical, occupational, and speech therapy and has developed special programs to serve Alzheimers's and related dementia residents and day care clients. Life Care and Beverly will offer IV therapy, wound care, and ventilator and respiratory therapy in addition to other therapies offered by Unicare. Beverly's therapy programs are more innovative and intense, based on the staffing and level of detail provided in describing the proposed services. Preference 7 is given for proposed charges not exceeding the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. Unicare proposes a Medicaid per diem rate for $86.57 for 120 beds in the second year while at least one provider in the subdistrict for 1997 will be charging $95.27. Unicare computed projected future rates by using 9.1 percent inflation of the Medicaid rate at one facility, which is not necessarily the highest existing provider, which results in a $98.44 rate. Unicare criticized Beverly's use of a 5 percent inflation rate of the highest current provider resulting in a projected rate of $99.47. The highest Medicaid rate in the district, inflated forward to 1997, was $99.31 at the time the application was submitted, so that Beverly's proposed charge of $99.00 is lower, as is Life Care's projected $97.11 and Unicare's $86.57. Preference 8 and subsection 408.035(1)(c) require a comparison of the applicants' records in terms of the quality of care provided in their existing nursing homes, as indicated partly by licensure ratings over the last 36 months. During that time, Unicare's 13 nursing homes have had 468 months of operation at approximately 63 percent superior, 29 percent standard, and 9 percent conditional. Beverly has had a total of 976 months of operations, 67 percent superior, 25 percent standard, and 7 percent conditional. Beverly has also paid a fine to the State of Oregon to settle claims related to patient care problems. The two Florida nursing homes owned by Life Care are rated standard, one in Citrus County opened in November, 1994 and is not yet eligible for a superior license. The other, in Altamonte Springs has been in operation for over 36 months, 29 of those with a superior licensure rating. The three applicants generally have operated and have the capacity to continue to operate superior facilities. Preference 9, on proposed staffing ratios and preference 10 related to the use of varied professional staff are also indications of the quality of care. AHCA requires one registered nurse on the day shift and none on the night shift in a 120-bed nursing home. All of the applicants exceed the minimum. The number of nursing hours per patient day will be 3.2 at Unicare, 3.35 at Life Care, and 3.85 at Beverly. One of four registered nurses on the day shift at Beverly will always be in the subacute unit. However, the ratio outside the unit, for the remaining 100 residents, still exceeds the minimum and meets the preference requirements. All three companies have existing Florida facilities available to provide training and, if needed, transfers of experienced staff to a new nursing home. They currently use and are proposing to continue to use professional staff from a variety of disciplines to meet residents' and clients' needs. Average administrative costs in the district, inflated forward, will be $24.58 and average patient care costs will be $49.49. The applicants report their comparable projections on Schedule 11. Unicare's projected costs are $27.80 and $50.59, respectively. Life Care's costs are $24.84 and $65.94, respectively. Beverly's are $24.44 and $62.30, respectively. With erroneously omitted laundry costs added to administrative costs, Beverly's administrative costs increase to $26.52. All three applicants propose higher administrative costs than the district average, but Life Care's are the lowest. All three have higher than average patient care costs, with Life Care favored as the highest. The following subsections of the CON statutory review criteria do not apply, in this case, to distinguishing among the Lake County applicants: - availability or adequacy of alternatives, such as outpatient care or home care; - economics of joint or shared resources; - need for equipment or services not accessible in adjoining areas; * * * - special needs of health maintenance organizations; - needs of entities which provide substantial services beyond the district; and - impacts on costs and effects of competition. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) - research and educational facilities needs Unicare and Life Care have established foundations to foster education and research in gerontology and health care. Beverly will commit, as a condition for the issuance of its CON, to providing a $10,000 research grant for a gerontological studies to Florida State University. All three companies assist in providing clinical experiences for nursing and therapy students in technical schools, community colleges, and universities, and benefit by recruiting employees from the programs. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - availability of funds to establish and operate project, and Subsection 408.045(1)(i) - immediate and long-term financial feasibility Unicare has $5 million in available cash and a $30 million line of credit. Unicare, using costs from other facilities adjusted to take into consideration geographical differences, projects a net loss of $250,672 in the first year and a profit of $50,482 in the second year. Unicare failed to include $3,000 in housekeeping equipment in its projected expenses, but can more than cover that omission with a $75,000 contingency. Life Care had a net worth of $50 million in 1993. For calendar year 1992, its audited financial statement shows over $10 million in net earnings and $4.5 million in cash on hand. Life Care projects a net loss of $548,190 in year one and a net profit of $236,022 in year two. Beverly has access to over $200 million for project development, combining its cash, cash equivalents, commercial paper and lines of credit. Beverly projects a pre-tax loss of $314,000 in the first year and a net profit of $214,000 in the second year. Beverly's figures were questioned based on its use of the experience of a Tampa area facility to determine some costs and expenses, its assumption that Medicare will be 13 percent of its patient mix, and its projected lengths of stay and revenues from Medicare. Beverly's use of unit-costs from existing facilities with modifications to fit the specific proposal is reasonable. Although the district Medicare rate is 5.7 percent and Lake County's is 6.1 percent, Beverly's higher proportion of Medicare is consistent with the level of subacute services it proposes in 20 of its 120 beds. After the maximum of 100 days of Medicare coverage, Beverly will have weaned or will transfer ventilator patients who do not have private insurance. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid participation Unicare has no nursing homes with CON conditions requiring a specified level of Medicaid participation, having purchased older, existing facilities in Florida. Nevertheless, eleven of its thirteen facilities exceed the Medicaid average in their respective subdistricts. For the first six months of 1993, Life Care's Medicaid resident days were 78 percent in Altamonte Springs (with no CON condition), 70 percent in Punta Gorda, 88 percent and 68 percent, respectively, in the two West Palm Beach nursing homes. Beverly's percent of patient days for Medicaid increased 63.3 percent to 66.8 percent from 1993 to 1994 for facilities in Florida. Beverly paid a $1500 fine to the state for falling below its Medicaid commitment in one of 17 state facilities with such conditions, Coral Trace in Lee County. AHCA agreed to reduce the Coral Trace medicaid condition from 78 percent to 53.3 percent to reflect the subdistrict average. In 1994, at Coral Trace, 49.5 percent of total patient days were Medicaid. All three Lake County applicants have demonstrated strong compliance with Medicaid participation criterion. Comparison of Lake County Applicants On balance, the Lake County applications are all more in compliance than not with statutory review criteria, with varying strengths and weaknesses. They are financially sound, experienced nursing home owners and operators. Unicare will improve access within the planning area. The demographic data on the municipality of Lady Lake shows significant growth. Unicare also will build a better designed and larger facility, and will focus its programs on meeting the needs of Alzheimers' residents and day care participants. Unicare's weaknesses are AHCA's architect's expectation that it will experience cost- overruns and the absence of ventilator services. Unicare relies on its actual experience with Florida construction projects to support the reasonableness of its projections. Unicare also projects the lowest Medicaid per diem rate. Life Care proposes to offer a wider range of specialized programs and therapies than Unicare, a design second to Unicare's in terms of size and residential amenities. Life Care's project costs are the highest of the Lake County applicants, but Life Care, when operational, will have the highest proportion of its costs applied to patient care. Beverly offers a range of programs comparable to those offered by Life Care, with greater emphasis on subacute care, and less emphasis than Unicare on Alzheimers' services. Beverly will build the smallest nursing home at the lowest cost, but is highest in projected Medicaid per diem rate. Unicare is recommended for CON approval due to its superior design, and superior Alzheimers' and day care services, and proposed location. Because the proposed location is a factor in Unicare's favor, it is recommended that Unicare's CON be conditioned on its obtaining a site in Lady Lake. Absent Unicare's agreement to a condition on location, Beverly is recommended for approval based primarily on its lower project cost, scope and intensity of subacute of services, and higher staffing levels.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA issue CON No. 7489 to Unicare to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in District III, conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed unit for residents with Alzheimers and related dementia and an adult day care providing half day care for 20 clients, the provision of 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, and the selection of a site for the facility in the municipality of Lady Lake, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 9th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NOs. 94-2452, 94-2453, 94-2462, 94-2467 and 94-2971 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Dixie's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7-9 and 14. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 15-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 7, rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted first sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected second sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-19. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 28-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 33-34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8 and 22. 35-36. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 40-41. Accepted in part in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 42-46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 35. 47. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 22. 48-49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 50. Rejected in Findings of Fact 23. 51-52. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 53-54. Accepted. 55-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 62-63. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 9. 70-76. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 77-78. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 79-80. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Petitioner, Life Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2-4. 3-4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. Accepted, except 6, in Findings of Fact 51-53. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 56-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 58. 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 8-10 and 51-53. 12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. 14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 15. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 52. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 71. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-67. 18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 19. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 32-34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 36-38. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 43-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 45-53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70. 56-59. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 61-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. 66-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Petitioner, Hilliard Health Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 3-4. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 8-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted. 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3, 4 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16, 24 and 30. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11, 15 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 31-34. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 17-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 17-19. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 48-49. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as "lowest need" in Findings of Fact 7. 52-61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 22. 62-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-16 and 23. Accepted. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected as not at issue. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 30. 80-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31-36. Rejected except first sentence in Findings of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 88-91. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-22. 92. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 2-6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 8-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47-49. 10-12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39-41. 13-16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 42-44. Accepted. 20-23. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4-9. 24. Accepted. 25-26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. 27-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 24-30 and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 31, and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 30 and 55. 33-35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 39-40. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 56. 46-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 51-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 53-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 56. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. 57-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 21. 59. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. 60-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 49 and 70. 65-66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70 and in conclusions of law 76. 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 68-69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 70-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60, except "probable" in last sentence of proposed findings of fact 74. (See, T-p 2197.) Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Petitioner/Respondent, Beverly's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1 and 37. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 37 and 50. 16-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 52. 20,22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51 and 54. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39, 42 and 47. 25 Accepted in Findings of Fact 39, 42, 47 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 56. 28-29. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 59 and 60. 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 62, 63 and 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Rejected as speculative. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in general except conclusion in Findings of Fact 66. 40-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66 and 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 54-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 56-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Rejected, as irrelevant based on previous interpretations by AHCA, in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 62-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60. 65-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. 67. Accepted, but list not construed as exclusive in Findings of Fact 56. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in preliminary statement and subordinate to Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Petitioner, Unicare's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 37 and 39. 2-3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40, 41, and 66. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 7-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-8 and 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 39. 12-13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 14-16. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 52. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 18-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 36-39. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 40-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 44-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39 and 61. 49-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. 53-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 63-68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 71-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 51. 76-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 79. Accepted in Findings of Fact 53. 80-81. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 82-83. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. 84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 85-86. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. 89-90. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 93-94. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57, 59 and 60. 95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 96-103. Rejected as having been modified and adjusted in Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Rejected in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 67. Rejected in Findings of Fact 66 and 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57-60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Rejected as not supported by the record. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Jay Adams, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. David Watkins, Esquire Patricia Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Pennington, Haben, Wilkinson,Culpepper, Dunlap, Dunbar, Richmond & French, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Wallace Assistant Director Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether a certificate of need for an additional 60 nursing home beds to be located in Sarasota County, Florida, in July, 1990, should be granted to any of the four competing certificate of need applicants in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact Procedural. Arbor, Health Quest, HCR, Trecor and fourteen other applicants filed certificate of need applications with the Department in the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle of the Department for Sarasota County. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed a letter of intent with the Department within the time required for the filing of letters of intent for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed their certificate of need application within the time required for the filing of certificate of need applications for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. The applications were deemed complete by the Department. The Department completed its State Agency Action Report for the October, 1987, nursing home bed review cycle on February 19, 1988. The State Agency Action Report relevant to these cases was published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 4, 1988. The Department proposed to approve the certificate of need application filed by Trecor and to deny all other applications. Eleven of the applicants whose certificate of need applications were denied by the Department filed Petitions pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the Department's proposed action. All of the Petitioner's except the three Petitioners in these cases withdrew their Petitions. The Parties. The Department. The Department is the agency responsible for reviewing certificate of need applications for or nursing home beds to be located in Sarasota County, Florida. Arbor. Arbor is a nursing home company that designs, develops, constructs and operates nursing homes. Arbor's corporate headquarters are located in Lima, Ohio. Arbor owns and operates eighteen nursing home and adult congregate living facilities comprising approximately 2,218 beds. In Florida, Arbor owns Lake Highlands Nursing and Retirement Center in Clermont, The Village at Brandon, and The Village at Countryside. In Florida, Arbor is currently developing certificate of need approved facilities in Clay, Orange, Polk, Pinellas and Sarasota Counties. Arbor formed Sarasota Health Center, Inc., to hold the certificate of need it is seeking in this proceeding. Although this corporation is in form the applicant, Arbor is in substance the applicant in these proceedings. Health Quest. Health Quest is an Indiana corporation which has been in the business of constructing and operating nursing homes and retirement housing facilities for approximately twenty years. Health Quest currently operates eleven nursing centers and three retirement housing developments. In Florida, Health Quest operates three nursing centers and two retirement housing developments. The nursing centers are located in Sarasota, Jacksonville and Boca Raton, Florida. The Jacksonville center is located adjacent to, and is operated in conjunction with, a retirement facility. The facility located in Sarasota is Regents Park of Sarasota (hereinafter referred to as "Regents Park"), a 53-bed sheltered nursing center. Regents Park is located at Lake Pointe Woods, a Health Quest retirement community, which includes 212 independent living apartments and 110 assisted living apartments. The assisted living apartments qualify as an adult congregate living facility. The 53 sheltered nursing home beds are authorized as part of a living care complex pursuant to Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. Health Quest has received approval from the Department to locate 60 nursing home beds, which Health Quest has received as part of a certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds, at Regents Park. The other 120 approved nursing home beds will be located at another facility to be constructed in Sarasota County by Health Quest. Health Quest also has two other projects under construction in Florida: a new facility in Winter Park, Florida, and a new facility in Sunrise, Florida. HCR. HCR is a corporation engaging in the business of designing, developing, constructing and operating nursing homes and related facilities. HCR is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Owens Illinois Corporation. HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds. HCR has designed and built over 200 nursing homes and related health care facilities. 24 HCR owns and operates ten nursing homes in Florida, including Kensington Manor, a 147-bed nursing center located in Sarasota County, Florida. HCR also has ten other projects being developed in Florida. Trecor. Trecor is a Florida corporation formed to engage in the business of developing and operating facilities within the full spectrum of the health care industry. Trecor was founded in 1985 when it acquired Burzenski Nursing Home (hereinafter referred to as "Burzenski"). Trecor does not own or operate any other health care facility. Burzenski is an existing nursing home with 60 dually certified beds located in the City of Sarasota. The facility was built in 1955 as a private residence. An addition to the facility was constructed in 1962. The Proposals. Arbor's Proposal. Pursuant to a stipulation with the Department dated September 9, 1987, Arbor received certificate of need 4182. Certificate of need 4182 authorizes Arbor to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. 20. Arbor's approved 60-bed nursing home facility will consist of 18,000 gross square feet. Costs of $2,200,000.00 have been approved by the Department in the certificate of need issued for the facility. Arbor intends to develop certificate of need 4182 by building a facility large enough for 120 beds. This facility will house the approved 60 nursing home beds and, if Arbor's application in this case is not approved, an additional 60 beds, licensed as adult congregate living facility beds. In this proceeding Arbor is requesting approval of a proposed conversion of the 60 adult congregate living facility beds to 60 nursing home beds. Arbor has proposed the construction of an additional 18,000 gross square feet to house the additional 60 nursing home beds sought in this proceeding. The proposed cost of the proposal is $2,380,000.00. The total cost of 120 bed facility will be $4,580,000.00. Health Quest's Proposal. Health Quest is seeking approval to convert its 53 sheltered nursing center beds at Regents Park to nursing home beds and to add 7 nursing home beds. The 60 nursing home beds are to be housed in the new community nursing home facility at Regents Park. The beds will be housed in 30,945 square foot of the Regents Park facility. Health Quest also intends to add 60 nursing home beds, which have already been approved by the Department, to Regents Park. The certificate of need application filed by Health Quest indicates that its proposal involves no capital costs. This is incorrect. There will be minimal costs associated with the addition of the 7 additional nursing home beds being sought by Health Quest which it has failed to include in its proposal. Health Quest did not present evidence concerning the total cost of the facility it plans to use to house the proposed 60 beds or the cost of the 60 beds already approved by the Department which it plans to add to Regents Park. HCR's Proposal. HCR is seeking approval to construct a new, freestanding 60-bed nursing home in Sarasota County. HCR's proposal also includes a 31-bed adult congregate living facility. The nursing home component will consist of 25,600 gross square feet (including 2,300 square feet to be used for adult day care). The total facility will consist of 43,000 gross square feet. Total capital cost for the nursing home component is estimated to be $2,519,000.00. The total cost, including the costs attributable to proposed adult day care services, is $2,657,000.00. The cost of the 31-bed adult congregate living portion of the project will be $1,800,000.00. The total cost of HCR's planned facility is $4,457,000.00. Trecor's Proposal. Trecor is seeking approval to construct a 60-bed addition to the Burzenski 60-bed nursing home. Burzenski is located at 4450 Eighth Street, Sarasota, Florida. The building in which the existing 60 nursing home beds are housed will be replaced by Trecor with a new building. The existing Burzenski building has out-lived its useful life and contains several structural deficiencies. Operations are severely restricted and inefficient. Existing three and four bed wards limit the placement of residents. The existing building does not comply with all current licensure requirements. The noncompliance, however, was "grandfathered" in. In order to replace its existing building with a modern building which meets all current licensure requirements, Trecor applied for a certificate of need in 1985 to build a replacement facility on an adjoining parcel of real estate for which Trecor held an option to purchase at the time. This application was approved on December 4, 1985. After an error by Trecor caused the time established for exercising the certificate of need to pass and a requested six-month extension of the certificate of need was denied by the Department, the certificate of need to construct the replacement facility lapsed. Another application for a replacement facility was filed in January, 1987. This application was approved by the Department in May, 1987. The replacement facility was not, however, constructed. Subsequently, in April and May, 1988, the Department determined that replacement of the existing building was exempt from certificate of need review. Trecor now proposes to add 60 nursing home beds at the same time that it builds its replacement facility for its existing 60 nursing home beds. The new nursing home beds will be housed on a second floor to be built on the replacement facility. In Trecor's application for (30 additional nursing home beds, Trecor has proposed the addition of 12,061 gross square feet to its replacement facility and a project cost of $885,210.00. The cost of Trecor's replacement facility will be $1,303,424.00 plus a $1,400,000.00 debt on the existing building. The total cost of Trecor's 120 bed facility will be $3,588,634.00. Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need. Pursuant to the need methodology of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k)(2), Florida Administrative Code, there is a need for an additional 75 community nursing home beds for Sarasota County for July, 1990, the planning horizon applicable in these cases. All of the applicants have agreed with the Department's determination of the need for additional nursing home beds for Sarasota County. All of the applicants are seeking to provide 60 of the needed nursing home beds. The District Health Plan. The district health plan for the Department's District 8, which includes Sarasota County, provides certain standards and criteria to be considered in determining community nursing home care need. The policy guidelines and their application, if applicable to the applicants in this proceeding, are as follows: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. Sarasota County is a separate planning subdistrict for community nursing home beds. Therefore, this guideline should be applied to Sarasota County. All of the applicants will increase the availability of nursing home services to the residents of Sarasota County. Community nursing home beds should be geographically distributed throughout the counties of District Eight to promote optimal availability and accessibility. The 2,264 existing licensed and 283 approved community nursing home beds located, or to be located in Sarasota County, are already geographically distributed throughout Sarasota County. All of the applicants will increase geographic distribution of beds throughout Sarasota County, regardless of where they may be located. At a minimum, community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy g. occupational therapy laboratory h. physical therapy x-ray i. speech therapy dental care j. mental health counseling visual care k. social services diet therapy l. medical services All of the applicants will meet thin guideline. New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33-1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. The applicants have proposed to provide the following percentage of care to Medicaid patients: Arbor: 45% Health Quest: 16.7% HCR: 42% Burzenski: 59% 1st Year; 60% 2d Year. All of the applicants except Health Quest comply with this guideline. Community nursing home facilities in District Eight should expand their financial base to include as many reimbursement mechanisms as are available to them including Medicare, Medicaid, Champus, VA, and other third-party payers, and private pay. This guideline applies to existing facilities. None of the applicants are proposing to "expand their financial bases" in the manner suggested in this guideline. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. This guideline has been filled. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable services areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. Existing facilities cannot reasonably meet the need for the 75 additional nursing home beds in Sarasota County for July, 1990. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. All of the applicants meets this guideline. Expansion of existing facilities to 120 beds should be given priority over construction of new facilities in the health service area. The proposals of Arbor, Health Quest and Trecor meet this guideline. The proposal of HCR does not meet this guideline. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. All of the applicants meet, or will meet, this guideline. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up service with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Nursing home services should be within at least one hour typical travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of all residents of District Eight. This guideline is not applicable. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Health Quest meets this guideline less than the other applicants because of its minimal Medicaid commitment. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. All of the applicants meet this guideline. Health Quest has not, however, provided Medicaid care at Regents Park. Health Quest does provide Medicaid at all its other nursing centers and will obtain Medicaid certification at Regents Park if its application for a certificate of need in this case is approved. Medicare is not provided at Burzenski at this time. Burzenski will, however, provide Medicare at its proposed facility. Failure of a holder of a certificate of need to substantially comply with statements of intent made in the application and relied upon the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as set forth in the Certificate shall be cause for the Department to initiate an action for specific performance, fines as specified in s. 381.495(3), or injunctive relief. This guideline is not applicable. Need for Services. HCR conducted a "non-numeric community need survey" in Sarasota County. Based upon this survey, HCR has suggested that there is an unmet need for 1,600 nursing home beds for Sarasota County for Alzheimer patients and other dementia patients. HCR's conclusions concerning unmet need for services for Sarasota County are unrealistic. HCR failed to prove that any need in Sarasota County for services for Alzheimer patients and others is not being met adequately. Services for Alzheimer patients are currently being provided by Trecor and Health Quest. HCR and Trecor have proposed to dedicate 30 of their proposed nursing home beds to the care of Alzheimer patients and patients with other forms of dementia. All of the applicants propose to provide a full range of services to their residents, including sub-acute care. Other Considerations. Health Quest's avowed purpose for the proposed conversion of its 53 sheltered beds is to insure that Regents Park remains available for use by the general public. Florida law allows sheltered nursing home beds to be used by persons other than residents of an adult congregate living facility for five years from the issuance of a license for the sheltered nursing home beds. Regents Park received its license in November, 1986. Therefore, its sheltered nursing home beds can remain available for use by the general public until November, 1991. Health Quest has received a certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds for Sarasota. Health Quest intends on placing 60 of those beds at Regents Park. The other 120 beds will be placed at another facility to be constructed in Sarasota County. Health Quest may be able to use some of its 180 approved nursing home beds to avoid the closing of Regents Park to the general public. Health Quest has not, however, explored this alternative. Health Quest's decision not to pursue this course of action is based in part on its decision that the 43% Medicaid care required for its certificate of need for 180 nursing home beds is not acceptable at Regents Park. Health Quest has failed to prove that its proposal is needed because of its desire to convert its sheltered beds to community nursing home beds. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The evidence in this case failed to prove that like and existing health care services in Sarasota County are not available, efficient, appropriate, accessible, adequate or providing quality of care except to the extent that existing services cannot meet the need for 75 additional nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Arbor. Two of Arbor's three licensed facilities in Florida are currently rated superior. The other facility is rated standard. Arbor's proposal may qualify it for a superior rating at its proposed facility. Arbor proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Arbor should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Health Quest. Health Quest has a corporate policy of emphasizing quality of care. It attempts to obtain the highest quality rating in every community it serves. Health Quest's facilities in Jacksonville and Boca Raton have been rated superior. Health Quest's Sarasota facility has not been in operation long enough to qualify for a superior rating. Health Quest's Sarasota facility offers a high level of staffing, including a Human Resources Director, who is responsible for personnel administration and training, a full time social activities director and an activities coordinator. It also has a high nursing ratio. Health Quest is proposing the highest level of staffing of the applicants in this proceeding. Extensive training and development of staff at Health Quest's Sarasota facility is provided. Orientation training and in-service training on an on- going basis will be provided. Health Quest proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Health Quest should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. HCR. HCR's existing Sarasota nursing home has received a license with a standard rating. Other HCR facilities have received standard ratings, including some facilities which were acquired by HCR with superior ratings. HCR also has facilities which have been rated superior. HCR will enhance the quality of care available by providing a full range of services, from the least intensive level (adult day care) to the most intensive levels (i.e., sub- acute care). HCR's proposal to provide adult day care, a dedicated Alzheimer's unit, sub-acute care and respite care, and its adult congregate living facility will enhance quality of care in Sarasota County. HCR adheres to extensive quality assurance standards and guidelines. HCR provides adequate training, exceeding state minimum requirements, for its staff. HCR proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. HCR should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Trecor. Trecor has contracted with Central Care, Inc., a Florida corporation providing a full spectrum of health care and retirement living services, to manage its facility. Trecor provides education and training for its staff on an ongoing basis. Even though Trecor is operating in an inadequate building, Trecor received a superior rating in 1986-1987 and 1987-1988. Trecor proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Trecor should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its proposed facility. Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants provided sufficient proof to conclude that they will provide joint, cooperative or shared health care resources sufficient to provide them with an advantage over the other applicants. Section 381.705(1)(f), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants proved that there is any need in the service district for special equipment or services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Section 381.705(1)(g), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants proved that this criterion applies in this proceeding. Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants' proposals will be accessible to all residents of the service district. Health Quest will, however, provide less access to Medicaid residents than the other applicants. Trecor will attempt to initiate internship and training programs for area nursing and allied health programs, and provide clinical placements. Health Quest participates in training programs for nurses from Sarasota Vocational/Technical school. A certified nursing aide program is also offered by Health Quest through Sarasota Vocational/Technical School. All of the applicants will be able to attract and maintain the staff necessary to operate their proposed facilities. HCR is proposing to provide the highest salaries and benefits for staff. Health Quest already has staff for its existing 53 beds. Health Quest is adding, however, 60 nursing home beds to Regents Park. HCR failed to prove that all of the existing staff will be used to staff the proposed 60 nursing home beds and not the already approved 60 nursing home beds. Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Immediate Financial Feasibility. Short-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to finance a project. Arbor. The total projected cost of Arbor's proposed 60-bed addition is $2,380,000.00. The total cost for its 120-bed facility is $4,580,000.00. Arbor's projected costs are reasonable. Arbor is proposing to contribute 10% of the cost of its proposal and finance the remaining 90%. Arbor has $39,000,000.00 in bank lines of credit, of which $34,000,000.00 remain available for development of Arbor's proposed project. Arbor also has sufficient money market funds to meet its projected equity contribution of 10%. Arbor has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Health Quest. Health Quest indicated in its application that there were no capital costs associated with its proposal. This is not correct. It will have some minor costs for the addition of the seven new nursing home beds it is seeking. Health Quest's proposal is the lowest in terms of additional capital costs which must be incurred. Most of the capital costs associated with the 53 nursing home beds it is seeking were already incurred when it built Regents Park. Health Quest did not provide proof of the cost of Regents Park. The unaudited financial statements of Health Quest indicate that it experienced a loss of $3,200,000.00 in 1986 and a loss of $5,000,000.00 in 1987. Health Quest has net worth and equity of $300,000.00 on over $200,000,000.00 in assets. The losses Health Quest has been experiencing have been the result of Health Quest's development activities. Health Quest can finance its project with internal funds. The evidence failed to prove that Health Quest must liquidate assets to generate operating funds. Health Quest demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. HCR. HCR's total estimated project costs for its 60-bed facility is $2,657,000.00. This amount includes the cost of the portion of the project to be used for adult day care ($138,000.00). The costs to be incurred for the adult congregate living facility is $1,800,000.00. HCR's projected costs are reasonable. HCR intends to contribute 25% of the total project costs and finance the remaining 75%. HCR has sufficient funds on hand to fund 25% of its project costs. In fact, HCR has the ability to contribute 100% of the total project costs. HCR has lines of credit with banks and other sources of obtaining financing for the project, including a loan from its parent corporation. HCR has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Trecor. The total cost of Trecor's proposed 60-bed nursing home addition is $885,210.00. The total cost of replacing the existing Burzenski building is projected as $3,588,634.00 ($885,210.00 for the proposed addition; $1,400,000.00 debt on the existing building; and $1,303,424.00 for the replacement of the existing building). Trecor is proposing to contribute 10% of the proposed project costs, or $88,521.00, and to finance the remaining 90%. To finance the entire project will require an equity contribution of over $300,000.00. Trecor has experienced operating losses in 1986 and 1987 and has a negative net worth of $259,000.00. Trecor has a positive cash flow, however. Trecor does not have sufficient equity to contribute 10% of the proposed project costs. The Board of Directors of Trecor has, however, adopted a resolution indicating Trecor's intent to provide the necessary contribution. Trecor can obtain the necessary funds from its owners if necessary. NCNB has expressed an interest in financing the rest of the project. Although NCNB has not legally committed to such an arrangement, it is reasonable to conclude that a satisfactory loan agreement can be reached with NCNB or Barnett Bank. Trecor has demonstrated immediate financial feasibility of its proposed project. Long-Term Financial Feasibility. Long-term financial feasibility is the ability of an applicant to operate a project at a profit, generally measured at the end of the second year of operation. Arbor. At the formal hearing Arbor presented an updated pro forma. Arbor suggested that the purpose of the updated pro forma was to reflect increased personnel costs and reduced utilization from 97% to 95%. According to Arbor, the changes reflect changes caused by inflation and "actual experience." The updated pro forma submitted by Arbor includes substantial increases in salary expense ranging from 10% to 30% (and one increase of 50%). The updated pro forma also includes at least one position not included in the original pro forma filed with Arbor's application. Arbor's original pro forma understated salary expenses. The updated salary expenses were foreseeable, and should have been foreseen, when Arbor filed its application. The updated pro forma was accepted into evidence over objection. In the updated pro forma, Arbor has projected a loss of $347,043.00 from revenue of $2,034,837.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $41,833.00 from revenue of $3,016,512.00 for the second year of operation. Arbor has projected a payor mix of 45% Medicaid, 5% Medicare and 50% private pay. These projections are reasonable. Arbor's projected fill-up rate is reasonable. Arbor's projected charges are reasonable. The evidence failed to prove that Arbor's projected revenue and expenses as contained in its original application are reasonable. The evidence also failed to prove that Arbor's projected expenses as contained in its updated pro forma are reasonable either. Arbor has failed to prove that its project is feasible in the long term. Health Quest. Health Quest is operating at close to capacity at Regents Park and is already charging close to its projected patient charges. The facility has been operating at a loss. The facility experienced a profit only during its latest month of operation. The addition of Medicaid beds will erode Health Quest's revenues to some extent. Health Quest has projected a profit of $16,663.00 from revenue of $1,771,303.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $40,698.00 from revenue of $1,850,156.00 for the second year of operation. Health Quest is projecting a payor mix of 16.7% Medicaid, 4.2% medicare and 79.2% private pay. These projections are reasonable. Regents Park opened in November, 1986, and filled up rapidly. It has been operating at full occupancy and with a waiting list. Health Quest's estimated fill up rate is reasonable in light of this fact. Health Quest has failed to prove that its project is feasible in the long term. HCR. HCR has projected a loss of $267,436.00 on $1,068,427.00 of revenue for its first year of operation and a profit of $62,729.00 on $1,772,399.00 of revenue for its second year of operation. HCR has projected a payor mix of 42% Medicaid, 4% medicare and 54% private pay. These projections are reasonable. HCR's projected fill-up rate to 95% occupancy is reasonable. HCR's projected patient charges are reasonable. HCR's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. HCR's project is feasible in the long term. (4). Trecor. Trecor has projected a profit of $77,458.00 on revenue of $2,481,229.00 for the first year of operation and a profit of $367,896.00 on revenue of $3,106,152.00 for the second year of operation. The pro forma submitted by Trecor is for the 120-bed nursing home facility and not just the proposed 60-bed project. Trecor has a negative net worth and Trecor has been operating at a loss. Trecor has projected a payor mix of 59% Medicaid, 3.5% medicare, 34% private pay and 3.5% V.A. These projections are reasonable. Trecor has estimated it will achieve 50% occupancy in the first month of operation and an occupancy of 96% by the seventh month. This is a fill up rate of 2 residents a week. Arbor and HCR have projected fill up rates of 2 residents a month. Trecor does not expect to lose any patients during construction of its facility. Trecor is currently at full occupancy and has a waiting list. Trecor's projected fill up rate is achievable. Trecor's projected patient charges are reasonable. They are the lowest of the competing applicants. Trecor has failed to include some expenses in its projections. Trecor left $50,000.00 of administrative salaries out of its projections and FICA is underestimated because Trecor used the old rate. When these expenses are taken into account, Trecor's project is still financially feasible. Trecor's projected revenue and expenses, except as noted above, are reasonable. Trecor's project is feasible in the long term. Section 381.705(1)(1), Florida Statutes. Based upon the projected rates for nursing home services to be charged by the applicants, Arbor and Trecor will have the least adverse impact on patient charges, followed by HCR. Health Quest will have the greatest adverse impact on patient charges. Generally, all of the applicants will enhance competition if their projects are approved. Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Arbor. Arbor's building will contain 36,000 gross square feet, with 18,000 gross square feet attributable to the 60 nursing home beds it is seeking in this proceeding. The cost of Arbor's proposed 60-bed addition is $2,380,000.00 ($132.22 per square foot) and the cost of its entire project is $4,580,000.00. The projected cost of construction is $1,228,000.00, a cost of $68.22 per square foot. Arbor's projected costs are reasonable. Arbor's proposed building will provide 300 square feet per bed. Arbor plans to build its prototype 120-bed nursing home facility. It has used its 120-bed nursing home plans for other Florida projects. These plans have been approved by the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification. Arbors' building will comply with all code and regulatory requirements. The building will be constructed on a 6.5 acre site which is appropriately zoned and of sufficient size. The design of Arbor's proposed building and the proposed methods of construction are reasonable. Health Quest. Health Quest has already constructed the building in which its proposed 60 nursing home beds dire to be located. The building is already licensed. The building complies witch all code and regulatory requirements. A total of 30,945 square feat will be devoted to the nursing home portion of Regents Park. This is the largest of the proposed facilities. The proposed building will have 515 square feet per bed. There are no construction costs to be incurred for Health Quest's proposal. Construction costs have already been incurred to construct the facility in which Health Quest's proposed beds will be housed. Health Quest's building design is of the highest quality. HCR. HCR is proposing to construct a 60-bed nursing home. Additional space for 31 adult congregate living beds and for an additional 60 nursing home beds will also be built. The facility will include a dedicated 30-bed Alzheimer's unit. The inclusion of this unit requires more space. The proposed HCR building will consist of 25,600 square feet for the 60-bed nursing home. This includes the $138,240.00 cost and the 2,300 square feet of the adult day care unit. The projected cost of HCR's project is $2,657,000.00 or $103.79 per square foot. The projected cost of constructing HCR's proposed building is $1,536,000.00 or $60.00 a square foot. HCR's projected costs are reasonable. 166. HCR's facility will consist of 426 square feet per bed. 167. HCR's facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. 168. HCR's design and methods of construction are reasonable. 169. HCR's facility will incorporate energy conservation measures. Trecor. The Trecor proposal entails the addition of a 60-bed patient wing on the second floor of a two-story building. The first floor of the building will be constructed by Trecor to replace its existing building. Approval of the replacement facility is not part Trecor's proposal at issue in this proceeding. The plans for the replacement building and the addition thereto have been developed together. The plans can be modified to insure that all of the proposed services can be accommodated in the building. The proposed Trecor building will be constructed in phases. First, the portion of the new building which will house the 120 nursing home beds will be constructed. Patients will then be transferred to the newly constructed facility. All of the existing building except the kitchen and administration facilities will then be demolished. Patients will be fed out of the existing kitchen and the administrative functions will be handled form the old administrative facilities. The new kitchen, dining and administrative offices will then be constructed. When this portion of the building is completed, the old kitchen and administrative offices will be demolished. Although inconvenient, Trecor should be able to continue to provide quality of care during the construction period. The other applicants have raised a number of issues concerning the Trecor building. The issues do not, however, involve violations of code or regulatory requirements for nursing home facilities. Trecor's building will contain a total of 31,398 square feet. This total includes 19,337 square feet attributable to the existing 60 nursing home beds and 12,061 square feet attributable to the 60 nursing home beds at issue in this proceeding. The proposed building is relatively small. Trecor's architect did a very good job of properly using the relatively small parcel of real estate he had to work with. The small size of the building, however, accounts for the lower cost of the Trecor proposal. The evidence failed to prove that Trecor cannot provide adequate care, despite the building's size. The cost of Trecor's proposed 60-bed addition is $885,210.00 ($73.39 per square foot) and the cost of its replacement facility is $1,303,424.00. The projected cost of construction for Trecor's proposed 60-bed addition is $592,500.00, a cost of $49.13 per square foot. Questions have been raised concerning the project development costs and the estimated architecture/engineer fees for Trecor's project. Trecor did not include all of the expenses for these items in the projected costs of its proposed 60-bed addition because the costs were included as part of building the replacement facility. Some of those costs could have been included as part of the cost of the proposal being reviewed in this proceeding. If those costs had been included, their inclusion would not affect the conclusions reached in this proceeding concerning the reasonableness of Trecor's project. Trecor's projected costs are reasonable. Trecor's proposed building will provide 201 square feet for the proposed 60 nursing home beds, 322 square feet for the existing 60 nursing home beds and 261 square feet for the total 120 nursing home beds. Trecor's building will comply with all code and regulatory requirements. The Trecor facility will be located on 1.97 acres. The design of the Trecor building and the proposed methods of construction are reasonable. Trecor's facility will incorporate energy conservation measures. Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants have a history of providing care to Medicaid patients. Health Quest, however, does not provide care to Medicaid patients at Regents Park. If Health Quest's application is approved, Regents Park will become Medicaid certified. The projected Medicaid of the applicants is as follows: Arbor: 45% Health Quest 16.7% HCR 42% Burzenski 59% first year; 60% second year All of the applicants except Health Quest are proposing to provide at least 42% Medicaid, which is the average Medicaid provided in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting Trecor's application for certificate of need number 5443 and denying Arbor's application for certificate of need number 5841, Health Quest's application for certificate of need number 5442 and HCR's application for certificate of need number 5437. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 14th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1945; 88-1949; 88-1950 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Arbor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 10-13. 2 1 and 29-33. 3 15-21 and hereby accepted. 4 19-20, 34 and 36. 5 22-25. 6 37-40. 7 26-27. 28, 41 and 44-47. Trecor applied for a certificate of need in January, 1987, not May, 1987. Hereby accepted. Not all of the applicants in this proceeding, however, have met the minimum criteria for the issuance of a certificate of need. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and a statement concerning the proceedings. 51. The last two sentences are argument. 51. The fifth through ninth sentences are argument. The evidence proved that Health Quest is adding 60 nursing home beds to its existing facility. Therefore, if its application in this case is approved it will have a 120-bed nursing home facility. 51. The last five sentences are statements of law and argument. Statement of law or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 15 64-66. 16 67-69 and 73. 74 and hereby accepted. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43 and 81. The fifth, sixth and eighth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. The third, fourth and seventh sentences are hereby accepted. Although this proposed finding of fact, except the last sentence, is generally correct, this is not the only factor to consider in determining whether an applicant can provide quality of care. Argument, not relevant to this proceeding or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-55 and hereby accepted. The last sentence, except the reference to the state health plan, is hereby accepted. The second, sixth, ninth, tenth and eleventh sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence or are argument. See 52-56. Argument. 56 and hereby accepted. 85, 87-88 and hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 51, 60-61 and 86. The second, third, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth sentences are not relevant to this proceeding, not supported by the weight of the evidence or argument. 26 92 and 114. 27 95-97 and 106-107. 28 98 and 100. 109-111. The last five sentences are argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 111-113. 97 and 107. Short-term financial feasibility of Health Quest is not moot and Trecor can finance its project with the assistance of its shareholders. Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 115 and 118. The last four sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence or are argument. 119-120. The last two sentences are not relevant to this proceeding or are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 123. 34 130 and 134. 125, 127 and 132. The fifth sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence is hereby accepted. 136-137 and 143. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 38-39 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument, not relevant to these proceedings or taken into account in determining the weight to be accorded to testimony. 40 Hereby accepted. The first and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 41 139-141. 42 See 97, 103, 107, 113, 124, 129, 135 and 145. Arbor has not proven that it is financially feasible in the long term. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 43, 46 and 56 Statements of law. 146 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 47 148 and 153-155. 48 157-158, 160 and 175. 49 161-163 and 175. 171, 175, 180 and hereby accepted. The sixth, ninth and tenth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 171. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-54 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument or not relevant to this proceeding. 55 185 and 187-188. The last sentence is argument. 57-58 These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the stipulation of the parties. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Department accepted all of the applicants' certificate of need applications as being complete. It would not be proper for the Department to now disqualify an applicant on the grounds that its application is not complete. Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 32, 34, 37 and 41. 3 2. 4 3. 4 and 6. 7. Not all of the applicants filed petitions. 7 48. 8 15-16. 9 67-68. 10 17-19. 11 21. 12 19. 13 58-59. See 57. The weight of the evidence did not prove that Regents Park will be closed to the public "unless Health Quest's application for conversion to community status is approved." 14-15 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant to this proceeding. 16 See 36. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 17-19 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or not relevant to this proceeding. 20 70 and hereby accepted. 21, 24, 27, 30-48, 52, 54-57, 61, 64, 70, 77, 88-89, 93, 95, 97, 107-108, 110-111, 113, 118, 124, 126, 128-129, 132, 135-136 and 138-139. Hereby accepted. 22 Hereby accepted and summary of testimony. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 91. 23 72. 25-26 88 and hereby accepted. 56 and hereby accepted. Not relevant to this proceeding. 49 Hereby accepted. The last two sentences are not relevant to this proceeding, are based upon hearsay and constitute opinion testimony from a nonexpert witness. 50 69. 51 Not relevant to this proceeding or based upon hearsay. 53 126 and 128. 58 Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 59 157. 60, 65-67, 71, 91, 112, 114-116, 121-122 and 125 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 62 Not relevant to this proceeding. 63 51 and 185-186. 68 100-101. 69 102. 72 51. The last sentence is rejected. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. The parties did not indicate that Section 381.703(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes, was at issue in this proceeding or that Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, does not apply. 73-76 Not relevant to this proceeding. The issue is not just whether nursing home services are available to all residents of the service area. Also at issue is whether each applicant is proposing to serve all of the residents of the service area. Health Quest's proposal does indicate Health Quest intends on serving a significant portion of Sarasota County's Medicaid population. 78 60-61. The portion of this proposed finding of fact prior to subparagraph a, the portion of subparagraph a appearing on page 19 of the proposed recommended order and subparagraphs b-d are rejected as argument, statements of law or as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. 79-82 Although generally correct, these proposed findings of fact are argument. 83 Not relevant to this proceeding. 84-86 Summary of testimony and argument. 87 Hereby accepted. The last sentence is not relevant to this proceeding or supported by the weight of the evidence. 90, 92 Not relevant to this proceeding. 94 Summary of testimony and argument. 96 Hereby accepted. The last sentence and the last half of the second sentence are rejected as not being relevant to this proceeding. 98-106 These proposed findings of fact were taken into account in determining the weight to be given testimony and other evidence. 109 Although the first sentence is correct, the rest of the proposed finding of fact is not relevant to this proceeding or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 117, 119-120 Not relevant to this proceeding. 123 108. The portion of this proposed finding of fact contained on page 30 of the proposed recommended order is primarily argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 127 143. 130-131 and 133-134 Not supported by the weight of the evidence, cumulative or not relevant to this proceeding. 137 The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence, argument or not relevant to this proceeding. Summary of testimony. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is argument and not supported by the weight of the evidence. HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 48. 2, 4-9, 13-14, 16, 19-20, 22-23, 27, 30-32, 35, 41-42, 45, 47, 49-51, 53, 63-67, 71 and 75 Hereby accepted. 3, 15 and 33 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. The last sentence, as it applies to Sarasota County, is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although generally true, this proposed finding of fact, as it applies to Sarasota County, is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 12 55. 17 37-4 and 55. 18 Hereby accepted, except that the first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 21 51 and 86. 24 51. The parties stipulated that the state health plan has been met by all of the applicants. 25 22-25. 26 76-78 and hereby accepted. 77 and hereby accepted. 78 and hereby accepted. 34 106-107. 36 Although generally true, the evidence failed to prove that HCR would provide these benefits without cost to its proposed Sarasota facility. 37 131-132. 38 133. 39 134-135. 40 89-90. 43 39-40, 163-164 and 166. 44 152, 167-170, and 180. 46 169-170. 48 165-166. 52 Hereby accepted. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that appropriate services for "AD patients" are not adequately available. 54 The parties stipulated that the state health plan has been met by all of the applicants. 55 2-3. 56-58 These proposed findings of fact are contrary to the stipulation of the parties. The parties stipulated prior to commencement of the formal hearing in this case that the criteria to be considered in determining which applicant was entitled to a certificate of need were contained in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the Department accepted all of the applicants' certificate of need applications as being complete. It would not be proper for the Department to now disqualify an applicant on the grounds that its application is not complete. 59 148-149. 60 Taken into account in determining the weight to be given to testimony. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 61 123. 62 Hereby accepted except the last two sentences which are not supported by the weight of the evidence. 68-69 115-117. 70 Not relevant to this proceeding. 72 41, 45-47, 175-176, 180 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted except the third through fifth sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted except the last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Taken into account in determining the weight to be given testimony and other evidence. Not relevant to this proceeding. 80-81 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 109-110. The last three sentences are not relevant to this proceeding. Hereby accepted, except for the first two sentences, which are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted except the third and last sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 136. Not relevant to this proceeding. Trecor's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-6, 20-24, 27, 29-32, 35, 37-39 and 56. Hereby accepted. 7 28 and 41-42. 8 41, 43 and 81. 9 26-27. 10 41, 44 and 81. 11 44-45. 12 46 and 171. 13 173. 14 46, 171-172 and 174. 15-16 173. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 16 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 17 181. 18 54-55 and hereby accepted. 19 79. 25 40, 47, 109, 111-112 and hereby accepted. 26 175 and 177. 28 178 and hereby accepted. 33 184 and hereby accepted. 34 138 and 142. 36 139-141. 40 50. 41 51. 42 51. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although the Arbor site was not disclosed, the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Arbor's proposal meets this portion of the district plan. 43-47 51. 48 51. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 49-50 51 and hereby accepted. 51 51 and hereby accepted. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-53 51. Argument. 51 and hereby accepted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 48. 2-3 49. 4 Not relevant to this proceeding. 5-6 Conclusions of law. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Contrary to a stipulation of the parties that all of the parties meet the state health plan to the extent that it is applicable. See 63. 10, 13, 15 and 17 Hereby accepted. 11 See 64-84 concerning Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(d), Florida Statutes, had been met or did not apply. 12 86 and 129. 14 Not relevant in this de novo proceeding and not supported by the weight of the evidence. 16 See 60-62. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Charles M. Loeser Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 James M. Barclay, Esquire 231 A East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jay Adams, Esquire Jay Adams, P.A. 1519 Big Sky Way Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Heritage Hall is a partnership, domiciled in the State of Virginia, which owns and operates ten nursing homes in that state. Heritage Hall did not, at the time of the close of this record, own or operate, nor have under completed construction, any nursing home in Florida. Heritage Hall filed a "letter of intent to construct, own and operate a 60-bed nursing home in the counties of Collier, DeSoto, Highlands, and Lee. On July 15, 1983, Heritage Hall filed the specific Certificate of Need application at issue with HRS, requesting authorization to construct a 60-bed freestanding nursing home in DeSoto County. That application was deemed complete on September 15, 1983, and a free form decision was made to grant it by HRS on December 1, 1983. The proposed nursing home would be located in the vicinity of Arcadia, in DeSoto County, a subdistrict of HRS District VIII. Diversicare Corporation, Inc. d/b/a DeSoto Manor Nursing Home (DeSoto Manor), (Diversicare), owns and operates DeSoto Manor Nursing Home, an existing 60-bed nursing home facility located in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. On November 3, 1983, Diversicare filed a Letter of Intent with HRS announcing its intention to seek a Certificate of Need for an addition to its DeSoto County facility. It ultimately filed an application seeking authorization for a 36-bed nursing home addition on January 12, 1984. No additional information was requested by HRS and the application became complete by operation of law on March 15, 1984. That application is thus in a separate and later batch for purposes of Rule 10-5.08, Florida Administrative Code, and thus was not comparatively reviewed with the application in the case at bar as a competing application. On May 1, 1984, HRS notified Diversicare of its intent to deny its application for the 36-bed addition. Heritage Hall proposes to construct a 60-bed nursing home at a total cost of $1,597,293. This specific cost of construction, not including land acquisition cost, is proposed to be $1,070,740. The nursing home's cost of construction allocated on a per bed basis would be $26,622. Heritage Hall proposes to finance this project to a tax-exempt bond issue in an aggregate amount of $1,436,075, carrying a 10 percent interest rate with a 30-year maturity. Additionally, the Heritage Hall partnership would invest $161,218. Heritage Hall projects that once it begins operation of the proposed new nursing home, that a 97 percent occupancy level for the proposed 60 beds would be reached within six months. Included within that projection, Heritage Hall projects that 49 percent of the patient revenues would come from Medicaid reimbursement, that 10 percent would come from Medicare reimbursement, and that 40 percent of its revenues would be attributable to private paying patients, not included within any relevant government entitlement programs. The remaining one per cent of its patient revenue base would be charged off and attributable to bad debt, or indigent patients. Heritage Hall proposes charges for its Medicare and Medicaid patients to constitute $62.39 per day, and its charges for private paying patients would be $68.00 a day for a private room, and $65.00 per day for a semiprivate room. It proposes to staff its facility with five registered nurses, six licensed practical nurses (LPN), 17 nurses aides, and an administrative and miscellaneous employee staff of 16, for a total staff for a 60- bed nursing home of 44 employees. DeSoto Manor's present patient population is largely composed of Medicaid and Medicare patients, such that 84 percent of its revenue is derived from Medicaid and Medicare sources. Its private paying patients are a small minority contributing 16 percent of its total patient revenues. DeSoto Manor has consistently experienced 99 - 100 percent occupancy for all of 1983 and 1984, upon which is earned a net income for fiscal year 1983 of approximately $15,000. DeSoto Manor presently employs on its staff 2.2 registered nurses, 5.6 LPN's, 17.1 aides, and 17.4 administrative and miscellaneous employees, those figures being expressed in terms of full-time equivalent employees in those categories. DeSoto Manor's application filed in a later batch is not at issue in this proceeding, in terms of comparative review for the purpose of determining whether Heritages Hall or DeSoto Manor is entitled to a Certificate of Need for DeSoto County nursing home beds as a result of this proceeding. Such a proposal, however, to add additional beds to an existing nursing home, is worthy of consideration as an alternative means of providing nursing home services to the public in District VIII, and specifically the subdistrict of DeSoto County, pursuant to authority cited infra. In that vein, DeSoto Manor proposes to add 36 additional beds at a total cost of $767,337, including involving a construction cost of $541,280, which is equivalent to a $21,260 cost per bed for the proposed 36-bed addition. DeSoto Manor would require the equivalent of 17.3 full time additional staff members, if such an addition (a 36-bed addition) were approved and built. DeSoto Manor charges will be (on January 1, 1985) $45.56 a day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $47.00 a day for its private pay patients. If its 36-bed addition were installed, it would charge $49.31 per day for Medicaid and Medicare patients, and $53.00 a day for private paying patients. DeSoto County is a relatively small county geographically, located inland from the counties bordering the Gulf of Mexico in District VIII. It is a rural county in character, as that term relates to its economic base being largely agriculture, and its low population density, with its population center being in the only sizable community of Arcadia, the county seat, located approximately in the geographic center of the county. It is surrounded by Sarasota, Charlotte, Highlands, and Hardee Counties. Highlands and Hardee Counties are in District VI, with Sarasota, Charlotte and DeSoto Counties being in District VIII, as are Lee, Collier, Glades and Hendry Counties. In 1987, DeSoto County is expected to have a population of 3,749 persons age 65 and over. The county is not experiencing a significant rate of growth at this time, nor is it expected to through 1987, the pertinent "horizon" year. Pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, the nursing home bed need methodology, HRS computes a need for additional nursing home beds in its health care districts and sub-districts, first by determining "actual need" or the "area specific bed need allocation." The actual need for additional nursing home beds is computed by means of a population based formula embodied in that rule. The second step of the need/availability determination process involves determining how many beds above or below the actual need determined may be added before the utilization in the district or subdistrict falls below 80 or 85 percent. The actual need or "area specific allocation" is determined by multiplying the poverty ratio for the district or subdistrict by the statewide nursing home bed need ratio of 27 per 1,000 persons age 65 and older, and the population of the district or subdistrict age 65 and older, and then subtracting from this computation the number of existing nursing home beds within the district or subdistrict. Within District VIII, the poverty ratio equals 8.61 divided by 12.70, the relevant population of the district for the applicable year being 213,561, with the population for DeSoto County, as a subdistrict, being 3,749 persons age 65 and older. There were 3,671 licensed nursing home beds in District VIII at the time of the hearing, and there were 1,130 beds approved, but not yet licensed or open in the district. There were 60 licensed and operating nursing home beds in DeSoto County. There were 3,904 actually "needed" or allocated beds in District VIII, which, when added to those beds approved but not yet licensed and operating, total an aggregate of 4,801 licensed and approved beds in the district. Thus, there are 997 excess nursing home beds over and above those actually needed in District VIII by 1987, according to the population based formula used in the first part of the need/availability determination process embodied in the above-cited rule. There is an actual need in DeSoto County alone of nine additional nursing home beds by 1987, based upon the subdistrict actual need allocation determined by the first part of the above methodology process of 69 beds. The second part of the need/availability determination process computes how many additional beds can be added to a district or subdistrict before the occupancy rates of nursing home beds in the district or subdistrict fall below the applicable rule mandated percentage. In DeSoto County, the applicable percentage is 80 per cent, because the subdistrict of DeSoto County indicates some need for additional beds, although the district as a whole has excess beds with no additional actual bed need shown. Thus, based upon the entire applicable computation, 15 beds may be added to DeSoto County before utilization of nursing home beds in the county will drop below the threshold of 80 percent. It has thus been established that if 60 beds are added to the bed supply in DeSoto County, for instance by a grant of the instant application, the utilization of nursing home beds will decline to approximately 50 percent. Under the above rule methodology, HRS, in adhering to the requirements of that rule, would not normally grant a certificate of need when only a small number of additional nursing home beds are computed to be available under that formula, that is, for a new freestanding nursing home facility. It is undisputed that construction of a new nursing home of less than 60 beds is not considered to be financially feasible. That rule of thumb does not apply, however, to the addition of beds to an existing, already-built parent facility, and it is undisputed that the addition of needed beds to an existing facility is more cost-effective in terms of construction costs and staffing, than the construction of a new facility. In its review process, with regard to the instant application and proceeding, HRS did not consider the alternative of adding new needed beds to the existing facility operated by Diversicare (DeSoto Manor), since the Diversicare application was not filed in the same batching cycle as the application at bar filed by Heritage Hall. Although the nursing home bed need determination formula reveals a maximum need of 15 beds for DeSoto County by 1987, HRS proposes to approve 60 beds in conjunction with the Heritage Hall application. In its review process, HRS took into account the fact that DeSoto and surrounding counties in District VIII were experiencing high occupancy rates as to existing licensed beds, and took the position then and in this proceeding that residents of DeSoto County needing nursing home care would have difficulty finding available nursing home beds. HRS failed to take into consideration, in its review process, the additional number of nursing home beds which had been approved in surrounding counties (as pertinent hereto, the surrounding counties of District VIII), but which were not yet licensed and actually operating. Thus, at the time of hearing there were 301 approved but not yet opened beds in Charlotte County, 97 approved but not yet operating beds in Collier County, 222 approved but not yet opened beds in Lee County and 597 approved but not yet operating beds in Sarasota County. Thus, the approved but not yet licensed and operating beds will result in an increase of 1,217 beds available, when open, to the residents of DeSoto and the adjacent counties of District VIII. 1/ The applicant and HRS seek to justify the approval of 60 additional beds in DeSoto County by reference to the high utilization rates being experienced in adjacent counties. As pertinent hereto, Charlotte County was experiencing an occupancy rate of 99 percent, Sarasota was at 88 percent occupancy, Lee County at 91.5 percent, with Collier County at 64.5 percent. Those figures do not take into account the latest nursing home District VIII occupancy figures as of June 29, 1984 which reflect the above-discussed additional approved, but not yet opened beds, and which result in the occupancy rates in these counties falling substantially. Thus, Charlotte is now experiencing only an 80.4 percent occupancy, for instance, with Sarasota County falling to a 78.5 per cent occupancy, with lowered occupancy rates resulting in Lee and Collier County as well with the addition of the approved, but not yet opened beds. These lowered occupancy rates resulting from the opening of these approved, but not yet licensed beds, were not considered by HRS at the time of its initial review, and free form grant of the certificate of need at issue. The opening of these hundreds of additional beds will continue to reduce occupancy in those counties and provide available beds to residents of District VIII and to residents of DeSoto County, to the extent those beds in the other counties are deemed accessible. HRS admitted at hearing that the availability of beds has increased in the district since its first review of the application. The financial feasibility of the Heritage Hall proposal depends upon an assumed 97 percent occupancy in its sixth month of operation, and projects that 40 percent of the revenues will be derived from private, paying patients. The 97 percent occupancy is an optimistic projection however, because only nine beds are shown to be actually needed in the county by 1987, and only 15 beds can be added before occupancy will drop below 80 percent. The addition of 60 beds would drop occupancy at DeSoto Manor and the proposed Heritage Hall facility, if built, to 50 percent. The Heritage Hall projection for revenues from private, paying patients which is 40 percent, is substantially more than the current revenue source from private, paying patients experienced by DeSoto Manor of 16 percent. In order to achieve such an occupancy rate in such a short time, and such a higher percentage of private, paying patient revenues, Heritage Hall must aggressively market its new facility and nursing home service so as to attract private, paying patients. Based upon historical evidence of record, it is likely that the patient base in DeSoto County itself will not support such a high percentage of private, paying patients and such patients will doubtless have to come from other areas or counties in the district, specifically the counties lying along the coast of District VIII. There is no evidence to establish that nursing home patients in the coastal counties have any inclination to seek nursing home care in DeSoto County, particularly because those coastal counties are already experiencing lowered occupancy rates, and nursing homes there need more patients. There is thus no demonstration that residents of the coastal counties in District VIII (or other adjacent counties for that matter) would travel to DeSoto County for nursing home care when there are empty beds available to them closer to their homes or the homes of their families in those counties. Heritage Hall proposes to recruit its staff from DeSoto County and the surrounding geographical area. DeSoto Manor however, itself is currently experiencing severe problems in recruiting registered nurses for its facility, in spite of repeated advertising and recruitment attempts. Potential staff members share a reluctance in becoming employed at DeSoto Manor, which lies in an isolated, rural area, and which must compete with the many nursing homes lying in the coastal areas in the other counties of District VIII for staff, and which areas offer more living amenities in general, than does the isolated, rural, small community setting in which DeSoto Manor is located. Indeed, other District VIII nursing home administrators have contacted the administrator of DeSoto Manor, in her capacity as administrator, as well as in her capacity as president of the Florida Health Care Association for District VIII, seeking assistance in obtaining additional staff for their facilities. Approval of the Heritage Hall application will, in effect, double the competition for staff members for nursing homes in DeSoto County, and will concomitantly, increase DeSoto Manor's present difficulties in obtaining and retaining appropriate employees. In calculating the financial impact which an additional 60-bed nursing home would have on the existing DeSoto Manor facility, DeSoto Manor assumed that the number of nursing home beds said to be available before occupancy dropped below 80 per cent, which includes the proposed 15 additional beds, would be full of patients and that these patients would be evenly split between the two nursing homes in the county. Thus, each nursing home would have approximately 37.5 patients in its respective 60-bed facility. In this event, and taking into account the concomitant reduction in staff, salaries and other per patient expenses because of a reduction in the number of patients, the proposed Heritage Hall facility would likely experience a net loss of approximately $232,587 for the first year of operation of its additional facility. DeSoto Manor's Medicaid reimbursement revenues would fall $31,722 below DeSoto Manor's actual cost of providing Medicaid patient care. Thus, in order to recover lost revenues and achieve a break-even profit and loss status, a significant increase in patient charges over existing charges would be necessary. The weight of such increase in patient charges would have to fall upon the private, paying patients in the revenue mix of each nursing home, because of the inflexible nature of the current Medicaid reimbursement scheme. In evaluating the DeSoto County population's accessibility to nursing home services, HRS admittedly did not take into account the provisions of Rule 10-17.020(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, which is the local health plan as it relates to nursing home planning adopted in the most current HRS rules. This local health plan provides for nursing home services to be available within a one hour travel time by automobile for at least 95 percent of the residents of District VIII. The president of the District VIII chapter of the Florida Health Care Association, who is the administrator of DeSoto Manor, is aware of at least ten nursing homes within a one hour drive of Arcadia and at least three others within that radius which are under construction, a significant number of which are in District VIII. Arcadia is located in the center of DeSoto County. All counties surrounding DeSoto County in District VIII have substantial numbers of approved beds which have not yet been opened and at least Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, which are adjacent to DeSoto County have occupancy rates in the neighborhood of 80 percent or less. The applicant did not establish, in furtherance of its attempted justification of 60 additional beds for DeSoto County, the lack of accessibility to DeSoto County nursing home patients of beds in the adjoining counties of District VIII, especially Charlotte and Sarasota, inasmuch as it was not established that those nursing homes in those coastal counties are more than an hour's driving time from the center of DeSoto County. Although, as witness Straughn for HRS established, Sarasota or the more westerly parts of Sarasota County, are approximately 49 miles and roughly an hour driving time from DeSoto County, it was not established that there are not nursing homes available in closer parts of Sarasota County which are accessible in less than an hour's driving time to DeSoto County residents and/or patients. Indeed, witness Porter testifying after the hearing by deposition, established that most of the nursing homes in the coastal counties involved in this proceeding, are within "40 some miles" from the present DeSoto Manor facility and the proposed Heritage Hall facility. Indeed, witness Porter established that Port Charlotte, in the immediate vicinity of which are several nursing homes, and which county is experiencing now an 80.4 percent occupancy rate (with the above-mentioned numbers of approved but not yet installed beds) is only 25 miles from the proposed Arcadia location. Thus, the criteria of the above rule which HRS witnesses failed to take into account, encompasses nursing home beds available or approved in the coastal counties referred to, which are accessible to patients in DeSoto County.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the relevant legal authority, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order DENYING the application of Heritage Hall to construct a new 60-bed nursing home facility in DeSoto County, Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1985.
The Issue Whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County?
Findings Of Fact HCR is a health care corporation. Its sole business is designing and constructing nursing homes. During the twenty years it has been in the business, HCR has built approximately 180 nursing homes. HCR currently operates approximately 10,000 nursing home beds in twelve states including Florida. HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to construct a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County. The Department denied this request. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home facility in Manatee County. If such a need exists, the Department has agreed that HCR "meets all applicable statutory and rule criteria." The need for nursing home beds is determined under Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.11(21)(a), Florida Administrative Code, contains the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a determination of bed need three years into the future "according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10." Under the methodology provided in subparagraphs 1 through 10, need is determined on a subdistrict basis if a departmental service district has been divided into subdistricts. Manatee County is located in District 6. District 6 has been divided into subdistricts for purposes of determining nursing home bed need. Manatee County has been designated as a subdistrict. Rule 10-17.018, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, nursing home bed need is to be determined under the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for Manatee County. The parties have agreed and the evidence proves that there is no need for nursing home beds in Manatee County based upon an application of the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). In fact, an application of the Formula indicates that there will be an excess of 105 nursing home beds in Manatee County three years into the future based upon the following: 876 nursing home beds needed - (765 existing beds + 90 percent of 240 approved beds) = (105). Based upon an application of the Formula, there is clearly no need for any additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. This determination, however, does not totally resolve the issue in this case. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department is to determine bed need according to the Formula "[i] n addition to other statutory and rule criteria . . . " Also, Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part, the following: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero, the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained in the Department's Rule 10-5.11. Based upon these provisions of the Department's rules, it appears clear that if no nursing home bed need is shown to exist based upon an application of the Formula, other statutory and rule criteria should be considered, i.e., are there adequate like and existing services in the subdistrict? Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, however, goes on to provide: Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under this provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed, unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special services, home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. As discussed under the Conclusions of Law, infra, this portion of the Department's rule (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Exception") is not the only alternative method of demonstrating a need for nursing home beds when there appears to be no need based upon an application of the Formula. A need for nursing home beds can be demonstrated even if there is no need indicated under the Formula and the Specific Exception is not complied with based upon a consideration of other statutory and rule criteria. The Specific Exception is, however, the only method by which an applicant can demonstrate the need for a new nursing home facility based upon an access problem in the relevant service district. HCR has attempted to prove there is a need for its proposed 120 bed facility based in part upon a consideration of Rule 10-5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. This rule provides generally for a consideration of the extent to which all residents of the service area and, in particular, low income persons, the elderly and others, can access existing nursing home beds. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home because of alleged access problems under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code, during the "peak season" in Manatee County and alleged access problems of Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients. As discussed under Conclusions of Law, infra, HCR has failed to comply with the Specific Exception in attempting to demonstrate need for its proposal under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, any evidence concerning access problems cannot be considered. HCR has also attempted to demonstrate need for its proposal based upon an application of Rules 10-5.11(4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. These rules require a consideration of the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of providing the proposed health services and the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that like and existing services in Manatee County are not meeting the needs of Alzheimer patients and respite care patients and that there are no alternative, less costly or more effective methods of providing HCR's proposed services. If HCR had succeeded in demonstrating need for its proposal under these rules, a certificate of need would have been recommended even though the Specific Exception was not complied with. HCR has agreed that its proposed facility will meet the alleged need for Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients in Manatee County by dedicating a thirty- bed wing to the care of Alzheimer patients, a thirty-bed wing to respite care patients and guaranteeing access to fifty percent of its beds to Medicaid patients. The following findings of fact are made with regard to the specific categories of persons allegedly in need of nursing home care. Although HCR's proposed findings of fact concerning access problems of these groups are not relevant because of its failure to comply with the Specific Exception, findings are made in an abundance of caution in case the Department or a Court ultimately determines that need can be demonstrated based upon access problems even when the Specific Exception is not complied with. Medicaid Patients. Manatee County generally experiences a "peak season" from November to March during which time nursing home bed use increases. The peak season in 1984-1985, however, was only about seven weeks. During the peak season there is some difficulty in placing Medicaid patients in nursing home beds in Manatee County. Between January, 1985 and March, 1985, the Department's Manatee County office placed twenty-two Medicaid patients in nursing home beds located outside of Manatee County. Some Medicaid patients have also been placed in adult congregate living facilities even though such placements are contrary to the prohibition against placing patients in need of skilled nursing home services in such facilities. L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital has also had to place patients in nursing homes on a temporary basis outside of Manatee County. During the past year, only twenty-four patients were placed in nursing homes outside Manatee County. The evidence does not establish how many of those patients were Medicaid patients, however. Alzheimer Patients. Alzheimer's disease is a disease which primarily afflicts persons in their 50's and 60's. It can, however, afflict younger persons also. The disease progresses through three stages and has no cure. During the first stage, the afflicted person experiences forgetfulness, impairment of judgement and inability to perform routine tasks. During the second stage, the afflicted person begins to wander. During the third and final stage, the afflicted person becomes dependent and incontinent. Currently there are approximately 160 Alzheimer patients in the five existing nursing homes in Manatee County. None of these nursing homes has a special program designed for Alzheimer patients. The evidence does not, however, support a finding that Alzheimer patients are not being adequately cared for. The evidence also does not establish how many persons in Manatee County are afflicted by Alzheimer's disease or the number of persons so afflicted who are in need of nursing home care. Generally, it is not until the third stage of the disease that nursing home care becomes necessary. Even then some Alzheimer patients are cared for in the home, private boarding facilities, or mental hospitals. The evidence does establish that no person afflicted with Alzheimer's disease has been refused admittance to a nursing home bed in Manatee County. The evidence also establishes that there is a 303 bed nursing home located in neighboring Hillsborough County which treats only Alzheimer patients. Hillborough County is located in District 6. Finally, the evidence demonstrates that Alzheimer patients would benefit from a special wing dedicated to the care of Alzheimer's disease in its final stages. Respite Care Patients. Respite care is the placement of a person in need of care under the supervision of another person for a short period of time. One purpose of this care is to free-up the primary care giver for a short period of time. The patient needs supervision or may need skilled nursing care. The length of the care can vary from a few hours to several weeks. HCR has proposed to establish a thirty-bed wing in its proposed facility that will be dedicated solely to the care of respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks. None of the existing nursing homes in Manatee County provides the type of specialized wing HCR in proposing. The evidence establishes that there is a need for such a service in Manatee County. The evidence does not establish, however, how many nursing home beds are needed. There was testimony that there was a need for fifty nursing home beds. This testimony was, however, purely a "guess". Additionally, this estimate was not limited to the type of respite care HCR proposes to provide; the respite care giving rise to this guess included respite care for as short a period as three to five days. Short-term respite care needs are currently being met by existing programs in Manatee County. DHRS Exhibit 4 does not corroborate the fifty bed estimate because it is not at all clear what the data on this Exhibit means. Based upon the foregoing, there is a need for nursing home beds for Medicaid patients during the "peak season" and for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of an access problem. The need of these patients, however, has not been properly demonstrated pursuant to the Specific Exception and therefore cannot be considered. If this need could be considered even though the Specific Exception has not been complied with, the evidence fails to demonstrate how many additional beds are needed. Additionally, two new nursing homes have been approved for construction which will add 240 nursing home beds in Manatee County. The addition of these beds will eliminate some, if not all, of the need of Medicaid patients. There is a need for nursing home beds for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of the lack of adequate like and existing services. HCR has, however, failed to prove that this need is sufficient to justify its proposal. The evidence fails to demonstrate a need for Alzheimer patients sufficient to justify HCR's proposal based upon the care presently being given to Alzheimer patients in Manatee County. Although the ability of Alzheimer patients to access beds is not relevant because of HCR's failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the evidence also fails to demonstrate any access problem of Alzheimer patients. Alzheimer patients would benefit from a dedicated nursing home wing. This finding, however, based upon the other findings of fact in this case, does not justify HCR's proposal. Even if it were concluded that HCR does not need to comply with the Specific Exception in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that a 120 bed facility should be approved. The only evidence as to the total number of nursing home beds allegedly needed in Manatee County was presented by Mr. Jay Cushman, an expert in the field of health planning. According to Mr. Cushman there is a need for a minimum of 193 additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon the criteria of Rules 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Mr. Cushman relied upon the effect on nursing home bed use of Manatee County's peak season and the needs of Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon his determination that there is a need for a total of 1,174 nursing home beds in Manatee County. This figure was arrived at by adding Mr. Cushman's projected need for Medicaid patients (40 beds), Alzheimer patients (121 beds), respite care patients (50 beds) and the current peak census of nursing homes in Manatee County (718 beds). The sum of these figures was multiplied by 1.137 (to account for population growth in Manatee County over the next three years) and the result was divided by ninety percent (to account for a maximum occupancy rate of ninety percent). Mr. Cushman's determination of need, to the extent his figures are based upon purported access problems associated with Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and persons in need of care during the peak season, should not and cannot be considered because of the lack of compliance with the Specific Exception. Since Mr. Cushman did take into account alleged access problems without complying with the Specific Exception in arriving at his conclusion that 193 nursing home beds are needed in Manatee County, Mr. Cushman's opinion of need is rejected. Even if it was proper for Mr. Cushman to consider access problems despite the failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the weight of the evidence does not support Mr. Cushman's opinion. In arriving at his estimate of the need for Medicaid patients, Mr. Cushman relied in part upon the fact that twenty-four patients (twenty-five according to Mr. Cushman) had been placed in nursing homes located out of Manatee County by L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital personnel. The evidence, however, does not prove that all of these patients were Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's determination that 50 beds are needed for respite care patients was based upon on the opinion of Mr. Russell Kitching. Mr. Kitching's estimate was rejected, supra. The most significant problem with Mr. Cushman's determination of bed need is his estimate of the need for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence proved that no Alzheimer's patient in Manatee County has been denied access to a nursing home. Finally, Mr. Cushman's opinion is contrary to, and did not take into account, the fact that Manatee County is projected to have an excess of 105 nursing home beds under the Formula. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that HCR has failed to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the certificate of need application filed by HCR for a 120-bed nursing home to be located in Manatee County be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire LARAMORE & CLARK, P.A. The Bowen House 325 N. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire CULPEPPER, TURNER & MANNHEIMER P. O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The broad issue for resolution is whether FHFC's application meets the criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. FHFC contends that its application meets all the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S., and when (1)(k) of Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. is properly applied, a net need for at least 93 beds results. DHRS contends that a need for only 17 beds exists when the numerical need methodology is applied consistent with its current policy. DHRS did not present any evidence on any criteria other than need. The more specific issue to be determined in this proceeding is focused on the data for current and future population used to calculate numerical need under Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. FHFC contends that the most recently released population estimates and projections should be used; DHRS asserts that the data available at the time of the application should be used. The parties' differing results in the net bed need (93 beds, as opposed to 17 beds) are based upon those separate theories for application of the rule.
Findings Of Fact FHFC currently operates a 120-bed nursing home in Polk County, on the northeastern outskirts of the City of Lakeland. Its application for an additional 60 beds was submitted in July 1985, in time for the July 1985 batching cycle. The application was deemed complete and was later denied in December 1985. The cover letter from HRS dated December 9, 1985, accompanying the State Agency Action Report, "SAAR", states the basis for denial: "There is insufficient need for the project proposed for this subdistrict at this time." Comments within the SAAR explain that the application of the methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. results in insufficient need for the project proposed by the applicant. "...Further, nursing home utilization within Polk County does not warrant the addition of nursing home beds at this time." (SAAR, P. 9, Petitioner's exhibit No. 2) Walter Eugene Nelson is a health planning consultant and former administrator of the HRS Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, the office responsible for administering the certificate of need program. He was tendered by Petitioner and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in health care planning and nursing home CON reviews. Mr. Nelson prepared a break-out of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. With one significant exception, his application of the methodology conforms to that of Herbert Straughn, HRS' expert witness. For the factors related to current and projected population (POPA, POPB, POSC and POSD), Mr. Nelson used data released from the Office of the Governor in January 1987. Mr. Straughn used data available as of the date of the application, that is, data released on July 1, 1985. Both parties agree that "current population" is that population at the time of application, July 1985. The projected horizon year population is three years later, or July 1988. Both parties agree that the source of the data is the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. Actual population census counts are made every ten years. During the decennium, population figures are extrapolated and updated through current data on utility hook-ups, building permits, employment, school enrollment and similar sources. When the data is applied to population in a future date, the resultant population count is called a "projection"; when the data is applied to population for a current or past date, the population count is called an "estimate". The Office of the Governor revises and updates its population estimates and projections every six months. Sometimes the figures are adjusted upward, sometimes downward. In the opinion of Eugene Nelson, the later-released figures are more accurate. In this instance, as to the figures released in July 1985, for the current (July 1985) population, the "estimates" were really projections since the data was collected in Spring 1985, before the relevant period. By January 1987, the estimates for the July 1985 population had the advantage of hindsight and the projections for the population in July 1988 had the advantage of data collected between July 1985 and January 1987. Herbert Straughn contends that the estimates and projections released in July 1985 are more appropriate. His explanation is best expressed in his own words: * * * [direct examination by Mr. Powell] Q What set of population figures did you use in your calculations? [response by Mr. Straughn] A I used the populations that were current at the time of the submission of the application, that being of July, 1985, and then the proper planning horizon of July, 1988. Q Why did you use those figures? A Because it more truly reflects the entire set of data that the Department sees fit to use on calculating bed need during or prior to, an administrative hearing. Q Why do you-all consider that to be more appropriate? A Because, well, because it more truly reflects the entire set of data by which to derive the methodology, that, you know, including the population, the occupancy, the number of licensed beds, and the number of approved beds. Q Well, just referring to the population, which Mr. Nelson has used a different set of figures, which set is the better set of figures to use, current as of the date of the application? A Well, I know it could be the current, or the date of the application, because then it truly reflects the input of the other set of data to derive the methodology to come up to the number of beds either needed, or not needed. Q Which figures do you consider more accurate, so far as population figures? A I would consider these that were current at the time that we did the analysis. Q Why? A Well, contrary, I think, to what Mr. Nelson says, that the closer that you can get to the population at the time you do the review, based on the ten-year span of when the population, or census, is taken, because it's taken every ten years, the further you get away from the base year, I think that the calculations that get further away from the base year, therefore, become less accurate. Q Would you say less reliable? A And less reliable. * * * (transcript, pgs. 89-90) As recently as September 1986, HRS used the most current available population data in its bed need methodology. Even now HRS still uses the approved bed figures available at the time the SAAR is signed, rather than at the time the application is submitted. Herbert Staughn's break-out of the methodology, Respondent's exhibit No. 1, reflects on its face the updated adjustment of another variable: "licensed beds" ("LBD" in the rule formula). His break-out initially included 1685 licensed beds, but shortly before the hearing this figure was adjusted downward to 1655 licensed beds after it was determined that Johnson Health Center's 30 beds were sheltered nursing home beds which are not applied in computing net need for community nursing home beds. Both parties apply an occupancy rate in the Polk County subdistrict of 84.9 percent. Herbert Straughn contends that this rate indicates lack of need, as it is less than an alleged minimum standard of 90 percent occupancy. This "minimum standard" is not described by rule or statute, nor was it adequately explained by the HRS expert. The CON review criteria listed in the SAAR correspond, in substance, to the review criteria in Section 381.494(b)(c) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. The SAAR is used by the agency as a convenient check list to inform an applicant of the extent to which the criteria are satisfied. There are criteria, other than need, identified in the checklist. In its case FHFC presented affirmative testimony that each criteria was met by the applicant. The only evidence presented by HRS related to need as addressed in paragraphs Nos. 8, 9 and 10, above. FHFC presented no evidence of special circumstances pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j. F.A.C. This provision applies in the event that the net bed allocation is zero. FHFC's break out of the bed need methodology yielded a net bed allocation of 93 beds for the planning horizon year 1988. HRS' break out yielded an allocation of 17 beds.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 15, 1986, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent to construct a 60 bed community nursing home with a 45 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Highlands County, Florida. This application was identified as CON 4700. After preliminary review, Respondent denied this application on or about December 23, 1986, and Petitioner timely filed its petition for formal administrative hearing. Highlands County is in Respondent's Service District VI, Subdistrict IV. The parties stipulated that there was a net bed need in the July, 1989 planning horizon for Highlands County of an additional 28 community nursing home beds, based upon the bed need calculation set forth in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. It was further stipulated by the parties that Petitioner's original application met all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of a CON, but for the issue of need. Since the parties did stipulate to a need for 28 community nursing home beds, Petitioner sought, at hearing, to offer evidence in support of only an "identifiable portion" of its original application. Thus, Petitioner offered no evidence in support of the application it filed with Respondent, and which was preliminarily denied on December 23, 1986. Rather, Petitioner sought consideration and approval of either 28 nursing home beds with 32 ACLF beds, or 30 nursing home beds with 30 ACLF beds. Since the stipulation of the parties could not cover the financial feasibility of either alternative because they were presented for the first time at hearing, Petitioner offered evidence to establish the financial feasibility of these alternatives. Based upon the testimony of Herbert E. Straughn, it is found that Respondent does not normally approve nursing home CON applications for less than 60 nursing home beds. However, Respondent has approved a CON application for 30 nursing home beds in association with 30 ACLF beds or some other similar service when the need for 30 nursing home beds was shown to exist. Respondent has also approved a CON for less than 30 nursing home beds in connection with an existing 60 bed facility when the stipulated need did not reach 30. In this case, Petitioner's original application was for 60 community nursing home and 45 ACLF beds, and it was at hearing that Petitioner sought to down-size its application to meet the stipulated need of 28 nursing home beds. There are no accessibility problems with regard to special programs or services, or any other problems of accessibility, in District VI, Subdistrict IV. Petitioner's request for partial consideration and approval of its application, which was presented at hearing, would not introduce any new services or construction not originally contemplated in its application, although the size of the project and number of beds sought would be reduced. In its original application, Petitioner proposed a nursing home with two 30-bed units, and now seeks approval for only one 28 or 30-bed unit. From a health planning standpoint, nursing home bed units usually occur in multiples of 60 due to staffing and equipment considerations. No evidence was offered to show why the Respondent should deviate from its usual practice in this case, other than the fact that a need for only 28 beds exists. At hearing, Petitioner introduced revised pro formas for 28 and 30 nursing home beds, associated with 32 and 30 ACLF beds, respectively. These revised pro formas were based on the same ratios of patients by payor class as in the original pro forma. The equity to loan ratios in the revised pro formas to finance the project remained the same as in the original application. The revised pro formas combine revenue and expenses for nursing home and ACLF beds. However, if revenue and expenses for nursing home beds is segregated from ACLF beds, it is found that a 30 bed nursing home facility would not be financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990, and a 28 bed nursing home facility would be even less financially feasible than a 30 bed facility. When revenues and expenses for the ACLF component of the project are considered along with nursing home bed income and expenses, the project shows only a marginal profit in the second year of operation with the 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative. It is barely break-even in the second year under the 28 nursing home bed-32 ACLF bed alternative. Thus, under either alternative, the project is not financially feasible in 1989, and the nursing home component of this project, standing alone under either alternative presented at hearing, is not financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990. The 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative is more financially feasible than the 28-32 alternative since the 28-32 alternative is barely break even in the second year of operation. Specifically, under the 28-32 alternative, pretax income of less than $9000 is projected in the second year of operation with total revenues of approximately $1.321 million and total expenses of approximately $1.312 million.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for CON 4700. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0667 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 9. 8-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as simply a statement of position and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 13-16 Rejected as conclusions of law and not proposed findings of fact; this legal argument has been considered in the preparation of conclusions of law contained in this Recommended Order. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 8, 9, 10. However the last sentence in the proposed finding of fact is rejected as unclear. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although from a health planning viewpoint a 30 nursing home bed unit is more functional and cost effective than a 28; it is also more financially feasible in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11, and otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although adopted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. 2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6 Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. 7 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 8-9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Adams, Esquire 215 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner and remaining intervenor are corporations engaged in the business of constructing and operating nursing homes in Florida. Each has pending before MRS applications for Certificates of Need for new nursing homes in Florida, and the challenged Rule 10-5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, is applicable to these applications. The respondent MRS has applied and relied upon the challenged rule to deny certificates of need to these parties. Prior to the adoption of Rule 10-5.11(21) , there was no uniform statewide methodology for the determination of the need for additional community nursing home beds. The different health planning districts utilized various methodologies to determine the nursing home bed need in their communities. The majority of the districts utilized a formula of 27 beds per thousand population 65 years of age and older. Application of the formula was adjusted or deviated from in some districts to account for other considerations, such as occupancy levels of existing facilities, the waiting lists for existing facilities, travel times and the exclusion of sheltered beds. In order to develop a uniform statewide methodology for determining the need for additional nursing home beds, the Statewide Health Coordinating Council (SHCC) established a work group to review the various existing methodologies and recommend a uniform methodology. This work group met over a period of some six months. Its recommendation, accepted by the SHCC, was the adoption of a statewide nursing home bed ratio of 27 beds per thousand population age 65 and over, with an area specific allocation based upon the poverty level in the service area compared to the statewide poverty level. In the July 23, 1982 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, HRS gave notice of its intent to adopt Rule 10-5.11(21) relating to community nursing home beds. The need methodology originally proposed was that recommended by the work group and SHCC--the 27/1000 ratio, adjusted by the poverty factor, with a population projected three years into the future. A public hearing on the proposed rule was held on August 10, 1982, and the record of the rule-adoption proceedings was held open until September 10, 1982, for the filing of any additional comments on the proposed rule. written comments were received by ERS after the public hearing. As a result of and in response to comments received regarding the originally proposed rule, HRS changed the methodology to he utilized for determining nursing home bed need by adding further steps to the application of the formula. Notice of the changes was published in the October 22, 1982 Florida Administrative weekly, and the rule became effective on November 15, 1982. No further public hearings were held on the challenged rule. The challenged existing rule states that applications for community nursing home beds will be considered in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The rule then sets forth a formula methodology for determining nursing home bed need in the various service districts and provides that applications for new or additional nursing home beds "will not normally [be] approve[d]" if approval would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated by the rule's methodology. Basically, the methodology prescribed in the challenged rule contains three specific steps or screens which must be met before additional beds may be approved. The three- step process begins with the 27/1000 bed need ratio, adjusted by the poverty indicator, as originally proposed. This results in a theoretical bed need. The number of existing and approved beds in the subdistrict is then subtracted from the number obtained by using the ratio to determine whether additional beds are needed in the district and the subdistrict. The subdistrict is then classified into one of four categories, depending on whether there is a need or lack of need in the district and subdistrict under analysis. Each of the four categories is assigned a current and prospective utilization or occupancy level ranging from 80 to 95 percent. The occupancy levels of existing nursing home facilities are utilized to reflect existing community behavior patterns which could not be captured by a general or theoretical need estimator alone. The prospective utilization screen, the last step in the methodology, purports to specify how many beds will be made available when a demand for beds exists. In essence, the rule defines an area-specific generalized or theoretical need for nursing home beds based upon the degree of poverty in an "area, and then looks to community behavior through actual utilization of beds to determine how and when additional beds should he added. The rule is designed to pace the issuance of new beds by examining the actual utilization of nursing home facilities in operation. Bed availability is paced in response to actual demand as evidenced by community behavior toward existing and new nursing home facilities. The formula methodology contained in the challenged rule does not take into consideration the use of nursing home beds by individuals under the age of 65. The rule assigns no weighted factor for the various age groups 65 and over. It is estimated that some 13 percent of all patients in nursing homes are under The vast majority of those persons presently in nursing homes are 75 and over, and the segment of the elderly population over age 75 is growing much more rapidly than that segment between 65 and 74. Many states utilize a higher nursing home bed per elderly population ratio than 27 per thousand. However, the types of beds included in those higher numbers were not established. It is the policy and practice in Florida to recognize and encourage alternative forms of long-term care for the elderly, such as sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility and adult congregate living facility beds. These tvpes of beds are not included in the 27 figure set forth in the challenged rule. The use of the 27 bed standard is based upon a trend line analysis of historical nursing home utilization, and is intended to be a cap on the number of approvable beds. Use of the poverty index factor to adjust theoretical need achieved by a simple bed to population ratio is based upon an actual positive correlation in Florida between the degree of ooverty in an area and the supply of existing nursing home beds in that area. The poverty indicator takes into account only those elderly persons defined according to the latest available United States census. No separate consideration is given to those persons who may be "medically indigent" or "near Poor," though not falling into the poverty category as defined by the United States Census Bureau. It often takes between two and three years to place a Certificate of Need approved nursing home into operation. Some 30 of all licensed and approved nursing homes in Florida are not presently in operation. In some counties, such as Dade and Monroe, only 30 percent to 35 percent of the beds approved are in a position to become operational. The effect of the challenged rule is to approve additional beds only after those beds previously approved become operational and occupied. Because the prospective utilization screen counts beds approved but not yet operational and assumes a zero patient census for these beds, application of this screen may result in a determination that no additional beds should be approved regardless of the lack of existing available nursing home facilities. This is the result of the rule's current application in Dade County. One of the purposes of the challenged methodology is to measure the actual demand for new nursing home beds in a cautious manner while allowing the market to respond to the beds approved prior to the rule. The methodology prevents the approval of all potentially needed beds in one hatching cycle by waiting to examine how utilization experience in the community may modify need. The rule's methodology does not provide a mechanism for making accurate long-range predictions as to the future need for nursing home beds in any specific area. As occupancy levels change, there will he great fluctuations in the resulting need for beds under the prescribed formula. In order to "run" the formula, it is necessary to have information concerning current and projected population figures, the poverty factor, occupancy levels of existing facilities and the actual number of existing and approved nursing home beds in the district and subdistrict. The newly enacted Medicare hospital reimbursement system based upon diagnostic related groupings (DRGs) is likely to have a tremendous impact upon the utilization of nursing home beds and other long-term care facilities. With reimbursement levels based upon the nature of the illness as opposed to the length of stay, hospitals will have an incentive to release patients earlier. An economic impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the challenged rule. The statement contains an estimate of the respondent's printing and distribution costs involved in implementing the rule. The EIS relates that the rule implements a statewide standard of 27 community nursing home beds per 1,000 population 65 years of age and older, and concludes that this standard does not exceed the current bed need standard applied in Certificate of Need decisions. It was noted that this rule establishes a cap on nursing home growth and thereby restricts public expenditures. A comparison of Medicaid expenditures if a higher bed to population ratio were adopted was provided. With regard to the effect of the rule on competition, the EIS relates that the rule will restrain the development of costly excess capacity and restrain competition among nursing home providers with the intent of containing public expenditures. Increased competition was noted among providers who serve patients whose care is funded with private resources. Before preparing the EIS, the author reviewed the suggested methodology of the State Health Plan and analyzed the various methodologies previously utilized in the various health planning districts throughout the State. She determined that the challenged rule would not basically change the existing methodologies applied throughout the State, and therefore concluded there would he no economic impact beyond the costs associated with the promulgation of a rule. According to calculations performed by the author of the EIS subsequent to the adoption of the challenged rule, the statewide bed to population ratio in Florida as of June, 1983, was 27.3. This result is derived by adding together the existing licensed beds, the Certificate of Need approved beds and the beds available on a statewide basis as a result of the rule's application, and dividing that number by the 1983 population age 65 and over.
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation it was agreed and it is found that Petitioner's Petition for Administrative Hearing to contest Respondent's initial decision to deny its application was timely filed. On July 15, 1986, Petitioner submitted a Certificate of Need application to construct a 60 bed community nursing home in Collier County, Florida. In December, 1986, this application was denied by the Respondent because of its determination that there was insufficient numeric need according to the rule bed need methodology and because of the low utilization rate of existing facilities in Collier County. The initial intent to deny was appealed by Petitioner which filed a request for formal administrative hearing. Before the matter could be heard, however, Intervenor, Lakeside, filed a Petition for Intervention which was granted by the former Hearing Officer. After the case was set for hearing, Respondent, DHRS, and Petitioner, Surrey, entered into a stipulation and agreement in which DHRS agreed to reverse its position and support Surrey's application at the final hearing and, pursuant to that agreement, on May 14, 1987, DHRS filed a Notice of Change of Agency Position. Health Care Associates was formed in May, 1977, by Dr. John A. McCoy, PhD, in conjunction with an associate, Stanford L. Hoye, each of whom owns 50 percent of the business. This company which, upon approval, will develop and manage the Surrey project, has been involved in the development of several nursing homes in Florida, all but two of which have been managed by the corporation upon development. At the present time, in addition to the instant project, Petitioner is developing three other nursing home projects in Florida at Live Oak, Bradenton, and Crystal River. Dr. McCoy was instrumental in obtaining Certificates of Need for nine of the nursing homes developed by his company. Two of those have not yet been licensed and of the seven remaining facilities, five have been sold by the corporation to other unrelated organizations. In each case, Dr. McCoy personally realized a profit on the sale. Petitioner proposes to build a 60 bed skilled nursing facility in Collier County at a projected project cost of $1,600,000.00. Approximately $250,000.00 of that figure will be utilized for land acquisition and site costs; $150,000.00 for furniture, fixtures, and equipment; $100,000.00 for architectural fees; and $1,100,000.00 for construction costs, insurance, non- movable equipment, and other items. The initial state agency action report on the application, rendered in late November, 1986, recommended the project be denied on the basis there was insufficient bed need shown and because of the low utilization of currently licensed and operating facilities. Nonetheless, on May 6, 1987, the Department changed its position and entered into a stipulation and agreement with the Petitioner, in which it agreed that no CON approved nursing home beds exist in Collier County; the District Health Plan indicates a need for an additional 143 beds in that county in the applicable planning horizon; the bed to population ratio in Collier County for the 65 and older population is the lowest in the Health Care District; and the age 75 and over population is expected to increase by 24 percent within the next three years. On the basis of these factors and others outlined in the stipulation, the Department concluded, inter alia, that Petitioner proposed the lowest total project cost and the highest Medicare and Medicaid commitment, and determined that Petitioner's application should be approved. Petitioner has identified two potential sites for construction of the facility, both located in North Naples. Both sites carry an asking price substantially in excess of the land acquisition estimates outlined in the application, and neither is currently zoned for the operation of a nursing home. Zoning changes or variances are available, but the cost of securing them may be high and time consuming. Albeit each site would be utilized for construction of not only the proposed nursing home facility but also its related personal care unit, Petitioner estimates that 60 percent of the cost of land acquisition would be apportioned to the nursing home component and 40 percent to the personal care unit. That being the case, one of the parcels would fall within the proposed land acquisition figure cited. DHRS District VIII has been divided into subdistricts for the purposes of planning for community nursing home beds. Subdistrict 2 of District VIII consists of Collier County, Florida. The methodology used by DHRS to determine the need for community nursing home beds in Florida is found in Rule-10-5.011, F.A.C. and it provides, among other things, that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined based on a planning horizon three years in the future from date of application. In this case, the appropriate planning horizon is July, 1989, three years after Petitioner's application was filed. The population figures relied upon by DHRS for ages 65 through 74 and ages 75 and above for the period July, 1986 and July, 1989 as of the date of the filing of the application were: 131,642 and 79,661 as well as 148, 229 and 96,142, respectively. The need formula contained in the F.A.C. also requires that the application submitted for July batching cycles be based upon the number of licensed beds in the District as of the preceding June 1. On June 1, 1986, District VIII showed 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds of which there were 473 licensed community nursing home beds in Subdistrict 2. As of November 26, 1986, however, there were no approved community nursing home beds in Collier County, a portion of Subdistrict 2. Another factor to be considered in the methodology is the occupancy rate within the district. As of the application period, the occupancy rate in Collier County was 84.44 percent including the occupancy data for Moorings Park. Petitioner and DHRS urge that it is DHRS policy to utilize at the de novo hearing the latest population figures available at the time of the initial application. These figures, cited above, reflect a 55 bed need in Collier county for the period July, 1989. There is, in addition, a factor which Petitioner urges relating to the licensure report submitted by Americana Nursing Home, located in Collier County, which indicates that a number of that facility's semiprivate rooms were converted to private rooms, thereby reducing the number of beds available for use in District VIII during the relevant time period. When this factor is incorporated into the calculations, a higher occupancy rate is indicated which results in a bed need of 66 rather than 55. Intervenor contests any adjustment made on the basis of Americana's conversion of some of its rooms from semiprivate to private rooms and a resultant decrease in the bed inventory thereby. It points out, and properly so, that former semiprivate rooms can be reconstituted as such in a very short period of time if needed and though the beds may not be set up when the room is a single room, the facility is capable of providing those additional beds without further approval when necessary. The removal of those beds, therefore, from the inventory, as a result of a temporary conversion is not an appropriate methodology. It has not been followed by DHRS in the past nor is it provided for in the rule and it should not be done here. Turning to the question of the population estimates and projections appropriate to make the proper calculation of numeric need for the area at the proper time, Intervenor objects to Petitioner's and DHRS' use of the pertinent population projections existing at the time of application on the basis that at a de novo hearing, the proper and most appropriate approach to bed need analysis and calculation would require the use of the most current available statistics. Utilizing the most current population projections for the July, 1989 planning horizon results in a net numeric need for July, 1989 of 21 beds with an error possible to 22 beds. In addition, the occupancy rate would be reduced and in that regard, evidence indicates that occupancy rates in Collier County have been low since 1982. However, there has been a steady and continuous rise in that figure since that time and as of July, 1987, it was 91.1 percent. The date upon which licensed beds are to be counted is provided for specifically in the rule defining need methodology, but the date upon which approved beds are to be counted is not stated in the rule. Similarly, the times for which population data are to be considered is contained in the rule methodology, but the release date of official estimates and projections to be utilized is not specified. Likewise, though the time period for which occupancy rates of existing facilities are to be considered is specifically set out, the input to be utilized when calculating "average occupancy rate" within that time period is not specifically established. In any case, the average occupancy rate as stipulated in the rule methodology for the area has been, until recently, consistently lower than 90 percent which is the figure identified in the rule methodology. Based on all the above, then, it must be found that the more accurate and pragmatic calculation of need utilizing the most current projections and discounting the agency policy for which the agency has not established any firm rationale or justifiable basis, indicates no numeric need for additional beds in the District during the period set forth in the planning horizon. Even if use of the rule methodology does not result in a mathematical showing of bed need sufficient to justify award of a certificate of need, nonetheless such a certificate can be awarded if other conditions and other circumstances establish a need that requires satisfaction within the area and the planning horizon. There was some dispute regarding poverty rates within Collier County and evidence presented at the hearing tends to indicate that the poverty rate in Collier County for the 65 and older population group is generally the lowest in the state. Low poverty rates among the elderly generally coincide with low nursing home utilization since wealthier patients generally have available to them alternatives to inpatient nursing home care. Intervenor urges, and there is no evidence to contradict it, that there are currently available alternatives to nursing home care for wealthy patients not only in Collier County but within District VIII as a whole. The Health Services and Facilities consultant for DHRS who initially reviewed Petitioner's application felt approval was not appropriate at the time he did his analysis. However, since that time additional information has caused him to conclude the application should be granted. He has subsequently learned that two of the four nursing homes in Collier County, which account for more than 50 percent of the beds licensed, have "conditional" quality ratings and there are currently no beds approved for construction in the county even though the county is one of the fastest growing counties in Florida. On the basis of this information, he now agrees with the agency's determination to approve a certificate of need for 60 beds for Petitioner. Based on what Mr. May knows of the three applicants, in his opinion Petitioner is the most appropriate applicant to receive the award. In the Stipulation entered into between Petitioner and the agency, the parties adopted the District VIII Health Council projection of 143 beds needed for Collier County for the 1986 planning horizon. The quarterly nursing home report for the period April through June, 1987, reflects the status of previously issued certificate of needs and includes all reported approved beds up to the date of issuance. This report shows that as of June 30, 1987, two applicants from prior batches received a total of 81 beds which, when subtracted from the 143 identified bed need, still leaves a 62 bed net need. Turning from the question of numeric need to other considerations regarding the applicant in issue, there can be little doubt that the estimates for the design of the proposed facility and construction are appropriate. The figures in Tables 18 and 19 of the application are also appropriate and reasonable. The costs for the project appear to be accurate and appropriate and the completion forecast timetable appears to be more than ample. Mr. Philips, the Vice President in charge of construction lending for the mortgage company which proposes to finance construction of the facility, is familiar with not only the applicant's corporate financial statement, but also those of the two principals, Dr. McCoy and Mr. Hoye. In his opinion, both are capable of providing the initial financing and their operations statements show a history of successful business operation. The 11 percent proposed as an interest rate for the loan supporting the construction is reasonable if not liberal, and the 25 year duration of the loan is also reasonable as is the loan origination fee of two points. If the certificate of need is approved, the lender is ready, willing, and able to lend the applicant sufficient funds to complete construction. Intervenor's expert in nursing home budgeting and financial feasibility analysis, testifying in contravention of Petitioner's experts, believes that approval of Petitioner's operation would have a severe financial impact on the Intervenor's operation as a current provider resulting in a first year bottom line loss of approximately $235,000 and a second year bottom line loss of almost $300,000. It should be noted here, however, that these are not actual operating losses but a projected reduction in profit. These estimates are based on August, 1987 figures adjusted forward for inflation. In short, while the opening of Petitioner's facility may have a negative impact on existing facilities, it would not necessarily result in a deficit operation for any existing provider. This expert also has some difficulty with Petitioner's projections of financial feasibility in its own facility. For example, he questions the 15 percent census of Medicare patients based on the fact that currently Intervenor does not have any Medicare patients though it does accept them. He also considers the estimate of a 96 percent occupancy by the end of six months to be unreasonable, especially in Collier County. He believes Petitioner's proposed expenses are understated and there are inconsistencies between the staffing table and labor costs in that the nursing expense is understated and the hourly rates projected to be paid are much too low. He believes that the projected cash flow is overstated since there is no provision for a reduction of principal. There are, also, other possible negative aspects to approval of Petitioner's application. Intervenor's regional director, who is an expert in nursing home administration, believes that approval of Petitioner's application will have a direct adverse reaction on Intervenor's Lakeside operation in regard to services provided, staffing, and its own financial feasibility. With regard to staffing, there is currently a critical shortage of nurses in Collier County and this factor was confirmed by a representative of another facility in the area. Approval of Petitioner's facility might well worsen the problem. Other service personnel are also in short supply and approval of Petitioner's application will worsen this as well. If these personnel shortages materialize, it may result in a reduction of quality of care, but this is speculative and there is no direct evidence that this would happen. Lakeside's current license is rated as "standard" as opposed to "superior" and this is claimed to be directly related to the nursing shortage which resulted in the facility's inability to attract sufficient nursing personnel to merit a "superior" rating. The witness identified other apparent deficiencies in applicant's submission, but these are either of a minor nature or the subject of opinion or conjecture. In short, the only substantive objection sustainable is the prospective adverse effect on the cost of attracting qualified nursing personnel. Certain other projections by the applicant are considered to be unreasonable by Americana's Director of Operations, such as the 15 percent projection for Medicare patients. Currently Americana, which generally has between 13 and 23 beds open at any time, has 2 Medicare patients and this witness also feels that a 96 per cent fill up rate in 6 months is unreasonable. Based on his experience, Collier County had even a slower than normal fill up rate when compared to other areas of the state. Notwithstanding the negative testimony, there can be little question, and it is so found, that Petitioner would be able to provide quality care if its application were approved. Turning to the question of the relationship of this application to State and Local health plans, the bed need calculation has already been discussed above. That calculation is based on the state methodology. However, the state methodology may be substantially different than a need developed by reference to the local health plan. The local plan looks at need from the county/subdistrict basis whereas the state looks at the district as a whole for establishment of need and then distributes beds on the basis of current bed census. When the smaller counties with fewer existing beds grow faster than the larger counties with a greater number of existing beds, they tend to be caught in a squeeze in that they get fewer beds because they are smaller, while their actual need may be greater than that of the larger county which, by virtue of its size, gets the larger number of beds. This state need rule, which calls for a 90 percent occupancy rate is felt by some to be less valid and less accurate a basis for evaluating the need in reality. As to the question of alternatives, there appear to be none for the vast majority of people in the county. Hospices or internal acute care bed or ambulatory facilities are not truly alternatives to nursing homes. In summary, Petitioner's expert believes that the Department's projected need for 43 beds could justifiably result in an approval of an application for 60 beds because: There were no approved beds at review time, Population trends, growth, and utilization trends indicate a need for new beds, The bed to population ratio in the county is one of the lowest in the district and in the state, (16 or 17/1,000 vs 27/1,000 normal for 65 plus) and the situation has not changed, Although the 65 plus population is used to determine need, the greatest use of nursing home facilities comes from the 75 plus population which is expected to increase in Collier County by July, 1989 by 32 percent, double the statewide average, At the time of application review, no existing facility was rated "superior" (there are now), showing a need for options. The applicant has a record of "superior" ratings statewide, The district health plan shows a bed need exceeding 60 beds for Collier County, The granting of a 60 bed nursing home is not inconsistent with previous actions by the Department when a mathematical need less a bed showed than 60 number. The project also is consistent with the rule criteria as well as statutory criteria, and Given DHRS's methodology and considering the adjustments due to Americana's change, there can be shown a mathematical need greater than the 43 shown by DHRS. Whether the need is 43 or 66 is really not important. The need is there. There is much to be said for these conclusions and they are adopted as findings herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, approving Petitioner, Health Care Associates, Inc., d/b/a Surrey Place of Collier County' application for a certificate of Need to establish and operated a 60 bed skilled nursing facility in Collier County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0691 The following constitutes my specifics rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT JOINT SUBMISSION 1 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10 - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted as a statement of DHRS policy and the resultant figures determined thereunder but rejected as the appropriate source of information. 17 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as Petitioner's and Respondent's calculation but rejected as bearing in the Issue of bed need. Rejected as not reducing the number of available beds. Rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24 - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32 - 34. Accepted. 35 - 50. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 53 - 54. Accepted and incorporated herein. 55 - 56. Accepted. 57. Accepted. 58 - 59. Accepted. 60. Accepted. 61 - 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. 66 - 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70. Accepted. FOR INTERVENOR 1 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance. First sentence is rejected. Occupancy rates of other local facilities are not necessarily determinative of the expected occupancy rates of Petitioner in the absence of a showing of similarity of other factors. 16 - 19. Rejected as based on other than the best evidence. No original source was presented. 20. Accepted. 21 - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26 - 27. Accepted. 28 - 29(b). Accepted. 30 - 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. 33 - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein - except for that portion of paragraph 34 indicating the approval of Petitioner's application would be inconsistent with local health plan. Accepted but not determinative. Accepted but not determinative. First sentence rejected as argumentative. Remainder accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected. 40-42. Accepted except for the last sentence of paragraph 40 which is rejected. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven. Mr. May was unaware of possible charges during lag time. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as argument rather than fact. 52 - 53. Irrelevant in light of 53. which is accepted. 54 - 55. Irrelevant in light of Intervenors' paragraph 55 which is accepted. 56 - 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59. Accepted. 60 - 64. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as biased. Accepted. Accepted as to the fact that a reduction in Lakeside's income might occur, but rejected as to its severity. Intervenor presents a "worst case" picture based on speculation and conjecture. Accepted that Petitioner's projected site is near that of Intervenor. Remainder rejected as conjecture. 70 - 71. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip F. Blank, Esquire Reynold Meyer, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Asst. General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The broad issue in this proceeding is whether either of the petitioners should be granted a community nursing home CON. The parties disagree as to the appropriate application of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C. Both Petitioners argue that the approved bed inventory should be determined as of December 1, 1986, at the same time that the number of licensed beds was determined for the January 1987 batching cycle. HRS computed approved beds as of the date that the supervisor signed its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in May 1987. The parties further disagree as to the effect of subsequent changes to a Final Order in Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. HRS, cited above, originally entered in April 1987.
Findings Of Fact BMI's application number 5010, and Manor's application number 5022, were timely filed for review by HRS in the January 1987 batching cycle. Both applications were denied in HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) dated May 19, 1987. BMI previously received a CON for 73 nursing home beds in Brevard County. Its current application is for 47 additional beds, to create a single 120-bed facility. The entire facility is currently under construction, with the intention that the portion unlicensed as nursing home beds will be utilized as a distinct section of adult congregate living facility (ACLF) beds. Manor also previously received a CON for 60 nursing home beds in Brevard County. CON number 3828 was granted in a prior batching cycle after the current application for 120 beds was filed. At the final hearing, Manor explained that it is now seeking only 60 more beds as it intends to construct a 120-bed facility in Brevard County. In their pre-hearing stipulation the parties agreed that if numeric need is demonstrated, numeric need would first be met through partial or total approval of BMI's application. If the need exceeds 47 beds, the excess should be applied toward determination of approval of Manor's application. The parties also stipulated that all criteria, except those directly related to numeric need for the projects, have either been satisfied by both applicants or are not applicable to this proceeding. In calculating bed need for Brevard County, the parties have agreed, through their exhibits and testimony, that the first portion of the need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C., yields a subdistrict allocation of 1560 community nursing home beds. It is further undisputed that the relevant number of licensed beds for the period in question is 1,180 beds. The version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. in effect at the time of review requires that licensed beds be counted as of December 1, 1986, for the January 1987 batching cycle. The rule is silent as to when approved beds should be counted. Both applicants argue that approved beds should be counted at the same time as licensed beds for consistency and planning purposes. The current version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C., known as the fixed pool rule, establishes a bed need for each batching cycle, thus providing the certainty and consistency sought by Petitioners' health planners. Prior to its adoption of the fixed pool rule, HRS experimented with various policies as to the determination of "current" data utilized in the need methodology. At the time of the January 1987 batching cycle, HRS' non-rule policy regarding approved beds was to count those beds as of the date that health services and facilities consultant supervisor signs off on the SAAR. In this case, that individual was Reid Jaffe, and the date was May 11, 1987. At the hearing, Mr. Jaffe explained the policy was an attempt to reach a balance between deriving a proper number of beds and minimizing the duplication of services and overbedding. Because the need for future beds is partially predicated on how many beds have already been approved, the Department felt it necessary to take into consideration all those beds which had been approved up until its decision time. Generally the difference between the number of beds published in initial projections of need by HRS' Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and the number of approved beds considered at the time of the decision, are those beds which were approved in final orders issued during that period. Contrary to Petitioners'assertions, those beds which became licensed after the December 1st cut-off date, but before the SAAR sign off, were not lost, but rather were computed by HRS as "approved" beds under the policy. The policy described by Reid Jaffe in his testimony at final hearing is also reflected in HRS' Final Order in Broward Healthcare, Ltd., d/b/a Broward Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FALR 1974 (DOAH #86- 2708, Order dated March 21, 1987), aff. per curiam, without opinion, January 21, 1988, 1st DCA case no. BT-258. Utilizing the HRS policy of counting approved beds at the time the supervisor signs the SAAR yields the following total: Approved Facilities Beds Date Approved West Melbourne Health Care 60 7/27/84 Unicare Health Facility of Brevard 120 5/30/86 Brevard Medical Investors 73 9/02/86 Meridian 60 2/ /87 Palm Bay Care Center 60 4/17/87 Forum Group 60 4/17/87 Courtney Springs 36 4/17/87 Total 469 In its SAAR, HRS neglected to include the 60 beds approved for Meridian. These beds were properly included by the applicants' health care planner in her adjustment to the SAAR count and HRS agrees the beds should be included. (See transcript, p. 20 and HRS proposed finding of fact #6.) In June 1985, Courtney Springs received a CON for 36 beds in Broward County. The action was challenged, and the proceeding was consolidated with challenges by other applicants who were denied CONs in the same batching cycle. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Courtney Springs, consolidated cases #85-2868, 85- 2936, 85-2934, 85-3243, 85-3322, 85-3365, 85-3366. In its Final Order, filed on April 17, 1987, HRS granted 60 beds each to Palm Bay Care Center, Forum Group and Courtney Springs. The Final Order was corrected on May 19, 1987, to provide that the award to Courtney Springs was 36, rather than 60 beds, as there was no intent to award the facility more beds than originally provided. In all other respects the final order of April 17, 1987, remained in full force and effect. On July 6, 1987, another order was entered and styled "Amended Final Order." The stated purposes of the amendment were to correct a scrivener's error in failing to serve the final order on a moving party, Brevard Medical Investors, Ltd., (BMI) and to give that party an "opportunity to exercise its right to judicial review." The Amended Final Order addressed BMI's lack of standing for failure to file a timely petition to intervene in the consolidated Wuesthoff cases. This is the only subject of the amended final order. The original final order, dated April 17, 1987, did not address this subject. It is not at all clear that the "Amended Final Order" dated July 6, 1987, amends the April 17, 1987, Final Order, since it references only an April 9th Final Order, not the April 17th Final Order. The record in this proceeding does not include a subsequent correction of "scriveners error", if indeed the referenced date was an error. The applicants argue that the 120 beds awarded to Forum Group and Palm Care should not be regarded as ?approve even under HRS' policy, since the amended final order was dated in July 1987, well after the SAAR was signed by Reid Jaffe in May. Application of this theory would result in 349 approved beds, and a net bed need of 66 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. (Manor Care, exhibit #5) Application of Petitioners' theory that approved beds should be counted on December 1, 1986, results in 289 approved beds, and a need for 120 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. HRS' application of its policy regarding the time at which approved beds are to be counted results in 469 approved beds, and a surplus of 42 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. There is no evidence in this proceeding of circumstances which would justify the approval of beds in excess of a net bed allocation derived through the bed need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the CON applications by BMI and Manor for nursing home beds in Brevard County be denied DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following reflect on my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Reid Jaffe testified that need for 12 beds exists, but this conclusion did not include the 60 beds approved for Meridian in February 1987. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and to the legal effect of the changes to HRS' April 1987 Final Order. Adopted, as to the characterization of applicants' position, in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 11-12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. 18-19. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 3. 22-26. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondents' Proposed Findings 1-2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraphs 9 and 10. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 10. 9-11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 15. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P. A. The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Regulation and Health Facilities 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
