Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a hospital licensed by the State of Florida and is located in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent, the affected state agency, as defined in Subsection 120.52(1), Florida Statutes, is responsible for the regulation of health care facilities, to include Petitioner. The Department also considers the question of provision of additional health care in the community through its certificate of need program. Intervenor has made application to provide ambulatory surgery in Duval County, Florida, through a freestanding surgery center. Jacksonville, Florida, is in Duval County. This case is part of a consolidated hearing process and is the companion matter to Saint Vincent's Medical Center, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Ambulatory Care - Duval Development Corp., d/b/a Jacksonville Surgical Center - Ambulatory Surgical Center, Respondents, D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-337 and Riverside Hospital, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Ambulatory Care - Duval Development Corp. d/b/a Jacksonville Surgical Center - Ambulatory Surgical Center, Respondents, D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-482. The first three days of the hearing were conducted on the dates alluded to in this order. That presentation was transcribed. In addition, deposition testimony was presented and accepted as part of the record in this matter. The campanion cases concern the propriety of the grant of a certificate of need to the Intervenor in this cause to allow construction and operation of a freestanding ambulatory surgery center which would be used for performing outpatient surgeries. At all times relevant to this case, Saint Vincent's had a department in which outpatient surgical procedures were performed and are expected to be performed in the future. With the advent of the establishment of the Intervenor's facility, that health care unit will be in competition with Petitioner in the realm of providing surgical procedures. As recently as 1975, Respondent knew that ambulatory surgery centers, such as that proposed by the Intervenor, would need permission to construct such a facility. This permission relates to the need to apply and receive a certificate of need from the Department. The authority for such regulation was pursuant to applicable provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding this regulatory role to be fulfilled, Respondent did not undertake a program for enacting rules to consider the question of need for ambulatory surgical centers. This lack of rulemaking was primarily due to inactivity of applicants seeking ambulatory surgical center certificates of need. This circumstance changed in late 1982. In December, 1982, Respondent received approximately thirteen applications for ambulatory surgical center certificates of need, as contrasted with approximately ten applications over the prior three years. At the same time Respondent was in the throes of having to revamp its certificate of need review process related to the overall health industry, brought about by statutory changes which abolished health system agencies and created local health councils. In 1983, at the time of the hearings, Respondent had received 27 applications for ambulatory surgery centers. This glut of applications by would-be ambulatory surgical centers and the 1982 applications were examined without formal rules defining the need question, related to expected numbers of surgical procedures that might be conducted on an outpatient or ambulatory basis. The determination of this ratio of outpatient surgical procedures to inpatient surgical procedures is a vital part of the need question. 1/ Absent promulgated rules, Department officials began their attempt to ascertain the percentage comparison between outpatient and inpatient surgeries, as that item was involved in the establishment of a methodology for considering the need question. Based upon information provided by applicants for ambulatory surgery centers and its own research, Respondent concluded that anywhere from 18 to 40 percent of total surgeries could be expected to be outpatient surgeries. Having utilized a median projection related to population expectations in the certificate of need process, the Department decided to use a median projection for the expected percentage of outpatient surgery. Thus, 29 percent was selected as the percentage of outpatient surgeries in the total number of surgical procedures and that percentage was utilized in the computation of the number of expected outpatient surgical procedures. Utilization of this 29 percent factor in the computation of the number of procedures to be expected on an outpatient basis may be seen in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and Respondent's Exhibit 1, application reviews. Once the Department decided to employ the 29 percent factor, it has consistently, on a statewide basis, utilized that factor in evaluating the question of the grant of certificates of need for ambulatory surgical center applicants. This has been done in more than one batch or cycle and was done in the instance of Intervenor's application which is at issue. Although the 29 percent factor is not the only determining element of the certificate of need process, it is an integral part of that process and can affect the outcome of the grant of the certificate, as has been the case in two instances alluded to in the course of the hearing. This policy choice by the agency is not emerging. It is not one of a series of approaches that have been experimented with in trying to arrive at a concluding agency position, prior to the formal adoption of a rule. This percentage factor has been the only number utilized in the review of all ambulatory surgery center applications commencing late 1982 to the time of final hearing in this action. This choice has not stood the test or scrutiny of the rulemaking process set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Notwithstanding the stated willingness of the agency to modify its position when presented with a more credible method, that contingency or eventuality has not occurred and every applicant for ambulatory surgery center certificate of need has had its application measured against the 29 percent factor commencing December 1982, to the exclusion of other techniques suggested by applicants. In the face of the facts reported above and the record considered, and recognizing that the agency should be afforded an opportunity to establish a record basis for the utilization of the 29 percent factor, even if it were found to be an invalid rule, a decision was reached at the time of hearing on the question of the utilization of the 29 percent factor and whether it was a rule not duly promulgated. It was found that the 29 percent factor is an unpromulgated rule and could not stand as law without first being subject to an assessment of the quality of the record basis for the agency's policy choice. The argument related to this case may be found at pages 798 through 829 of the transcript. The ruling is announced at pages 829 through 832. Respondent subsequently presented additional evidence in support of its policy choice and that may be found in succeeding sections within the transcript. This written order memorializes the ruling announced at hearing.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulations of fact, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner RHPC, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospital (Riverside) is licensed to operate a 102-bed general, acute care hospital located in New Port Richey, Pasco County. Formerly a public hospital known as West Pasco Hospital, Riverside was acquired by American Healthcare Management, Inc. (AHM) of Dallas, Texas, in December of 1983. By the prior issuance of Certificate of Need (CON) Number 2859, Riverside was authorized to construct and equip a new hospital building for patients and ancillary services at a cost of $14.8 million, including a special procedures room. The new building was approved for occupancy and use as a hospital in September of 1986. Riverside was able to complete construction and equipping of its new facility for an amount approximately $2.5 million less than the approved capital expenditure budget for CON No. 2859. Riverside now seeks to upgrade the existing equipment in its special procedures room so as to be capable of performing cardiac catheterization procedures. The room would not be a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory, but would serve the dual function of both cardiac catheterization and non-cardiac angiography. While the cost of creating a brand new cardiac catheterization laboratory would normally amount to approximately $1.4 million, petitioner proposes an expenditure of only $512,474. This lower figure results from the fact that Riverside's existing special procedures room was equipped during the renovation and reconstruction authorized pursuant to Certificate of Need Number 2859, and now needs only to be upgraded to achieve cardiac catheterization capacity. In 1982, prior to its acquisition by AHM, Riverside lost its accreditation through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH). The removal of accreditation was occasioned by code and physical plant deficiencies and documentation deficiencies related to quality assurance, infection control, medical record-keeping and staff credentialling. Riverside has attempted to eliminate all such deficiencies which led to the prior loss of accreditation. In September of 1986, Riverside submitted its application for a JCAH accreditation survey of its facility. As of the dates of the administrative hearing, the survey dates had not yet been scheduled. It generally takes JCAH approximately so days after a survey to render its accreditation decision. Riverside does not intend to offer cardiac catheterization services until JCAH accreditation is received by the hospital, and is willing to condition its proposed Certificate of Need upon receipt of such accreditation. Riverside has been certified by HRS for Medicaid/Medicare participation. While those conditions of participation are similar to JCAH accreditation standards, they are not identical. Riverside's active medical staff includes six board- certified or board-eligible cardiologists, none of whom currently perform cardiac catheterizations. There are no cardiovascular surgeons on staff, and Riverside does not immediately intend to offer open heart surgery at its facility. Approximately nine local cardiologists in Pasco County, including those on the medical staff of Riverside, have formed a corporation to promote and implement a quality assurance program for the catheterization laboratory at Riverside and to recruit and hire a board-certified cardiologist to perform the catheterizations. No specific physician has yet been recruited as catheteer. Riverside currently has on its staff certified critical care registered nurses and registered nurses with advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) training. It also has radiological support staff, staff trained-in photographic processing and staff available to handle blood samples and observe and monitor patients. It is expected that there will be cross-training at other AHM facilities having cardiac catheterization laboratories, such as St. Luke's Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. In addition to the cardiologists, Riverside intends to staff the proposed laboratory with one registered nurse, one radiology technician, a scrub technician and a technician responsible for the operation of the physiological monitoring during a procedure. The former two positions will be hired exclusively for the cardiac catheterization laboratory, and the latter two are already on the staff and will be assigned for catheterization procedures. Riverside currently offers the following noninvasive cardiac/circulatory diagnostic services: hematology studies, coagulation studies, electrocardiography (EKG), chest x-rays, blood gas studies, clinical pathology studies, blood chemistry analysis, nuclear studies pertaining to cardiology, echocardiography, pulmonary function testing and microbiology studies. Riverside proposes to upgrade its existing General Electric angiographic system with a new General Electric multi- purpose diagnostic system, and will also purchase a physiological monitor. A maintenance agreement will be purchased under which General Electric, which maintains an office in Tampa, will be responsible for maintaining the equipment. It is anticipated that a GE service technician will be on call, if not on site, during all cardiac catheterization procedures. GE also provides in-service training in the use of its equipment, and it is anticipated that GE training personnel will remain on site during the first several times the equipment is operated. Funds for the proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory are available through the prior financing arranged by AHM for the hospital reconstruction and renovation authorized by Certificate of Need No. 2859. Assuming that the proposed lab will perform 219 catheterization procedures at an average charge of $1,794 during the first year of operation, and 417 procedures at an average charge of $1,884 during the second year, Riverside projects a net income of $20,593 for year one and $117,288 for year two. The proposed charges are comparable to those of existing providers. The pro formas assume a payor mix of approximately 15 percent Medicare patients. Inasmuch as a large majority of patients requiring cardiac catheterization are elderly, the Medicare patient mix projections are probably low. Since Medicare does not generally fully reimburse a hospital for its actual charges, the net income projections are likely overstated. The pro formas do not include any expenses associated with a helicopter ambulance service. The expenses projected for employee benefits, seventeen percent of salary, appear to be a little low for the Pasco County area. Riverside anticipates that the net income generated from the proposed catheterization lab will also help offset and reduce the overall losses experienced by it in the past several years. HRS District V includes Pasco and Pinellas Counties. Although the HRS methodology for determining the numeric need for cardiac catheterization laboratories indicates, no additional need in District V, the parties have stipulated and the evidence demonstrates that there is a need for such a lab in Pasco County. The five existing catheterization laboratories in District V are all located in Pinellas County. There are currently no existing or approved labs in Pasco County, and approximately 1,200 Pasco County residents per year are being sent out of Pasco County for cardiac catheterization, mostly to Tampa General Hospital in District VI. The physicians who testified at the hearing would prefer to perform cardiac catheterization procedures and send their catheterization patients to a facility which also has open heart surgery capacity. When open heart surgery is necessary and a patient is referred or transferred to another hospital for such surgery, that facility often performs its own cardiac catheterization procedures. This results-in duplicate costs, services and potential risk to the patient who is cashed in one facility and referred to another facility for surgery. It has been the experience of local cardiologists in Pasco County that between 50% and 70% of patients upon whom a catheterization procedure is performed ultimately also have open heart surgery. Nevertheless, each of the cardiologists who testified indicated his desire and willingness to utilize Riverside's proposed laboratory for low-risk diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures. Until Riverside is able to offer open heart surgery services at its facility (which is within Riverside's long-range plan)' it proposes to screen patients for risk, and perform only elective, diagnostic catheterization procedures. Neither pediatric, emergency nor therapeutic catheterization, such as balloon angioplasty, will be performed in Riverside's proposed cardiac cath lab. Three hospitals offering open heart surgery have entered into formal transfer agreements with Riverside. These include Morton F. Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg, and Tampa General Hospital in Tampa. None of the three are within thirty minutes driving time from Riverside by emergency vehicle. Morton F. Plant' the closest of the three, is 27 miles from Riverside. During a "red run" or "hot run" with sirens and lights flashing, and following normal emergency driving procedures, it would take between 45 and 50 minutes for an ambulance to travel between Riverside and Morton F. Plant Hospital. There are large traffic volumes which utilize the road systems between Riverside and Morton F. Plant Hospitals, and a great number of lighted intersections. While petitioner presented testimony that an emergency vehicle traveling 10 miles per hour over the speed limit could reach Morton F. Plant from Riverside in 30 minutes, 18 seconds, such testimony is not deemed credible. The witness had not actually traveled that distance in an emergency vehicle. An actual emergency run was made from Tarpon Springs General Hospital to Morton F. Plant Hospital a distance of about 15 miles. That run, travelling a portion of the same route proposed by Riverside's witness, took about 22 minutes. Given the fact that Riverside is some 10 to 12 miles further away from Morton F. Plant Hospital than is Tarpon Springs General Hospital, it is concluded that an ambulance could not travel the 27 miles from Riverside to Morton F. Plant Hospital in 30 minutes in average travel conditions. Riverside does have a helipad at its facility, but does not own a helicopter and does not have a contract for air ambulance services. Although one of Riverside's witnesses believed that a helicopter would be at Riverside on all days upon which cardiac catheterizations are performed, no expenses for a helicopter or a contract with a helicopter ambulance service are included within Riverside's pro forma. Riverside intends to offer cardiac catheterization services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. While patients are generally directly charged for the actual costs associated with emergency transport, it is not reasonable to assume that the costs of either purchasing or maintaining an on-site helicopter could legitimately be directly charged to patients. The actual flight time from ground takeoff at Riverside to ground landing at Tampa General Hospital in average travel conditions is 15 minutes. There is a licensed air ambulance service, known as Suncoast, which operates out of Tampa International Airport and maintains two helicopters. Unless a hospital has a contract for air ambulance services, Suncoast does not dedicate a helicopter to be on standby and ready to respond to a call for an emergency flight. Even if a helicopter were available, it would take between 30 to 45 minutes to place a helicopter on the ground at Riverside after the need has been communicated to Suncoast. Given the fact that Riverside does not own or maintain a helicopter on site, it is reasonable to consider the time which could be expected to lapse between the summons for an emergency transport vehicle and its arrival, as well as the time of transport between two hospital facilities. Emergency runs, whether by ground ambulance or air transport, are tremendously stressful on a patient. This factor becomes particularly important when the patient is one who has recently undergone a cardiac catheterization procedure and is being transported for emergency open heart surgery. Even when patients are screened for risk, complications can arise during a diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedure necessitating an immediate transfer of the patient to open heart surgery or, in some events, a therapeutic catheterization procedure. Such complications include a possible artery dissection during insertion of the catheter or the occurrence of an eschemic episode as a result of the displacement of oxygenated blood with the dye injected into the coronary arteries. While these events are rare, occurring in possibly only 1% of all diagnostic procedures, they do necessitate immediate, more advanced treatment. The 1985-87 Florida State Health Plan favors co-located cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs in the same facility. Quoting from the Inter-Society Commission on Heart Disease Resources, the State Health Plan notes: ". . . there can be little justification for the development of these highly specialized facilities (cash labs) unless expertise in cardiology, cardiovascular radiology, and cardiovascular surgery are immediately available. Optimally therefore, catheterization laboratories should be located only in institutions with well organized and closely related programs of cardiovascular surgery. ". . . such an arrangement not only facilitates close interdisciplinary cooperation and minimizes unnecessary, repetitive, inadequate, or unsafe diagnostic studies, but it also allows prompt intervention should life threatening complications develop during catheterization studies . . . It should be emphasized . . . that separation of the diagnostic laboratory from the surgical facility is less than optimal and may present serious problems." (Riverside Exhibit 5, Volume II, pages 95-96). The State Plan recognizes that some within the medical community feel that independent, "satellite" labs can perform studies as adequately as labs associated with open heart surgery programs. However, it also recognizes the literature demonstrating that such independent labs usually have lower utilization rates. The District v Health Plan does not stress co-location, but suggests that cath labs be developed in areas which have the potential of justifying open heart surgery capability within three years. Other than considerations of timely access, there was no evidence that an additional open heart surgery facility is needed in District V or specifically, in Pasco County. The District Health Plan does stress the provision of services to the indigent. Riverside is committed to serving all patients regardless of ability to pay. Bayonet Point Hospital is a 200-bed hospital located in Hudson, also in Pasco County. In an earlier batching cycle, Bayonet Point applied for a Certificate of Need to add both a cardiac catheterization laboratory and open heart surgery at its Hudson facility. After an administrative hearing, it was recommended that the application be granted. (Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 85-3569) The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services rejected that recommendation by Final Order filed on August 22, 1986, and the matter is currently on appeal to the District Court of Appeal, First District. If Bayonet Point were to offer cardiac catheterization services at its facility in Hudson, a cardiac cath lab at Riverside would have an adverse impact upon Bayonet Point's program.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Riverside's application for a Certificate of Need to equip and operate a cardiac catheterization laboratory at its hospital in New Port Richey be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 19th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard A. Carson, Esq. and Robert P. Daniti, Esq. Carson & Linn, P.A. 1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Darrell White, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Thomas M. Beason, Esq. and Donna H. Stinson, Esq. Moyle, Flanagan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner, respondent and intervenor have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner 16. First sentence rejected as contrary to the evidence. 27. Last sentence rejected insofar as it contemplates the reasonableness of the pro forma with regard to the Medicare patient mix and the failure to include expenses relating to an air ambulance. 38,39. Rejected. Failure to account for a proper payor mix and air ambulance service renders the financial feasibility projections unreliable. Rejected. Only the JCAH can render such a factual finding. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the record of this proceeding. See Order denying second motion to reopen record. Rejected as to travel time. Not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accepted only insofar as it pertains to actual patient flight time. Rejected as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Second sentence rejected as speculative. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence, although it is recognized that Riverside intends to offer only diagnostic procedures. Last sentence rejected as an absolute statement of fact. Not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 64. Second sentence partially rejected as contradicted by competent, substantial evidence. See Finding of Fact 10 in this Recommended Order. Respondent HRS 20. Rejected insofar as it applies to all ambulance drivers. Not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Intervenor Bayonet Point 5. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Fourth sentence is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Third sentence partially rejected. See Finding of Fact Number 11. 16. While accepted as an accurate statement of fact, it is concluded that such considerations should not be included within the 30 minute travel time rule. 17,18. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. First sentence accepted as factually correct but not determinative of the reasonableness of the pro formas. First sentence accepted as factually correct but not determinative of the reasonableness of the pro formas. 22,23. Partially rejected as speculative and unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as an improper finding of fact, as opposed to a conclusion of law after considering the factual circumstances. Accepted only if the words "if approved" are added.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Surgical Services of Tampa, Inc. (SST) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Surgical Services, Inc., (SSI) located in Orlando, Florida. Eighty percent of SSI is owned by American Medical International, Inc. (AMI), the third largest health care provider in the United States. The remaining twenty percent ownership of SSI is held by Randall M. Phillips, who also serves as the president of SST. AMI owns and operates some 70 acute care hospitals in the United States and abroad, a nursing home and 7 or 8 ambulatory surgery centers around the country. Two of these centers are located in Florida, one in Clearwater and one in Tallahassee, and SSI has the responsibility for these centers. SSI also holds several Certificates of Need for other free standing ambulatory surgery centers to be constructed in Florida. AMI has made a commitment to provide financial support for the total development of the applicant's proposed ambulatory surgery facility in Tampa. This support includes the purchase of the land, construction of the building, equipping the facility and working capital. The financing is to be in the form of a fifty percent equity contribution and a 28-year loan at 12 percent interest to SST for the remaining funds. AMI has sufficient financial resources to fulfill its commitment to the proposed project. The total projected cost for the proposed facility is $2,240,800.00. The parties have stipulated that the proposed costs associated with construction, equipment and land acquisition and preparation are reasonable. The parties have also stipulated that the proposed staffing pattern is adequate and that the applicant SST will have the ability to adequately staff the proposed facility. While SST had not made a firm site selection at the time of the hearing, it has plans to locate its facility somewhere near the vicinity of St. Joseph's Hospital and the Human Women's Hospital in Tampa, Florida. Its service area includes all of Hillsborough County. The center will consist of four operating rooms or surgical suites, and laboratory, x-ray and administrative areas for a total of 15,000 square feet. SST plans to handle all types of surgical procedures which can be performed on an outpatient basis. Its medical staff will be open to all doctors qualified to perform the types of surgeries that can be accomplished on an ambulatory, outpatient basis. The facility will admit any patient a surgeon schedules for surgery, and will accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. SST plans to invoke an aggressive marketing effort to inform and educate consumers, insurance companies, employers, physicians and other health care facilities in the market area as to the benefits and cost- effectiveness of using its facility to perform surgery on an outpatient basis. It has budgeted some $20,000.00 to effect such a marketing program. Professional accreditation with the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals will be sought after the proposed facility completes its first year of operation. Based upon a 15 percent Medicare utilization or patient mix and using the lowest Medicare reimbursement level and a projected number of procedures of 2,234 and 2,681 for the first and second years of operation, SST projects that it will have a loss of $17,426 in its first year of operation and a profit of $22,173 in its second year of operation. Using the highest payment level in the amount of contractual allowances, SST's pro forma statement shows a net income in both years of $689 and $41,444, respectively. The projected Medicare utilization percentage of 15 percent was not demonstrated to be erroneous and approximates the Medicare mix experienced at the petitioner's ASC facility in the preceding year. The projection of 2,234 procedures to be performed in the first year of operation was derived by estimating the number of potential ambulatory surgeries in the proposed service area (approximately 30 percent of all surgeries) and subtracting therefrom the number currently being performed in hospitals (approximately 15 percent), leaving a projected unmet caseload of 2,234. The salary projections, which were adjusted for inflation under the assumption that the proposed facility would begin operations in August of 1984, appear to be reasonable and adequate. In the 1981-82 reporting period, approximately 58,000 total surgical procedures were reported in Hillsborough County. Of this number, approximately 82 percent were performed on an inpatient basis, while 18 percent were performed on an outpatient basis. The literature on the subject, as well as some other states, predicts that between 28 percent and 48 percent of all surgeries could be performed in ambulatory settings. In Salt Lake City, Utah, 38.2 percent of all surgeries are performed on an outpatient basis. A wider acceptance on the part of patients, consumers and physicians of the concept of performing surgery on an outpatient basis, as well as changes in third party reimbursement (including the new Medicare reimbursement system of payment based on diagnostic related groupings as opposed to lengths of hospital stay), should result in the performance of an increased percentage of surgeries on an outpatient basis. The applicant's expert ambulatory surgical facilities health planner utilized four different methodologies to evaluate the need for additional ambulatory surgery facilities in Tampa. The first methodology utilized was use rate-based and took into account population and historical surgery utilization data. Using the assumption that 30 percent of all surgeries performed can be performed in an ambulatory setting, projecting the number of surgeries expected in 1984 and subtracting the number performed on an outpatient basis in the last reporting period (1981-82), it was determined that the remaining unmet need in 1984 would be 8,226 ambulatory surgeries, and the respective figures for 1985 and 1986 would he 8,596 and 8,955. A flaw in this methodology is the assumption that existing facilities will not increase their usage of outpatient surgical procedures. The second methodology is also use rate-based, but predicts an increased performance of outpatient procedures by existing facilities, said increase approximating the percentage of population growth, assumes a 30 percent to 40 percent outpatient to inpatient ratio and produces a range of unmet need in 1984 of 7,586 to 13,753, in 1985 of 7,737 to 14,028, and in 1986 of 7,885 to 14,295. The third method is a use rate and capacity-based methodology. It also uses the 30 percent to 40 percent range as the potential ambulatory surgery market and then designates a number of dedicated operating rooms which would be appropriate to fill that need. Assuming that an average capacity is 1,200 procedures per room per year and that all current ambulatory surgeries are performed in dedicated ambulatory surgery suites, and then dividing that capacity figure into the number of expected ambulatory surgeries in 1984, the required number of dedicated operating rooms ranges from 16 to 21 in 1984 and 1985 and from 17 to 22 in 1986. Assuming 9 current dedicated ambulatory surgery operating rooms, the net need is determined as a range from 7 to 12 additional dedicated rooms in 1984 and 1985 and from 8 to 13 in 1986. The fourth methodology is similar to the first, but is based on patient day utilization. It uses a 30 percent outpatient to inpatient ratio, and yields an unmet need, after subtracting current procedures performed at existing facilities, of 8,221 procedures in 1984, 8,591 in 1985 and 8,950 in 1986. Each of the methodologies results in a sufficient number of outpatient surgical procedures to support the applicant's proposed surgery center. The respondent HRS has no promulgated rule prescribing the methodology to be utilized to determine the need for additional ambulatory surgical centers in an area. Its non-rule methodology, utilizes a use rate per 1,000 population for a given year, applies that to a projected population two and three years into the future and then multiplies that figure by 29 percent. The 29 percent represents a midrange between 18 percent and 40 percent, the range suggested by the literature as representing the percentage of total surgeries that can be performed on an ambulatory basis. Taking into account the existing outpatient use rate being experienced, the projected population and the projected number of outpatient procedures which will be provided by existing facilities, a total number of outpatient procedures that could be performed by an applicant is produced. The Department also considers the number of procedures an applicant would have to perform in order to break even financially in its second year of operation. This methodology relates need to financial feasibility, but does not consider capacity or optimum utilization factors. In this case, the use of HRS's methodology results in a total figure of 7,569 outpatient procedures that need to be provided in 1986 beyond those that would be provided by the existing outpatient facilities of the area hospitals. The HRS calculations do not consider those procedures being performed at the petitioner's ASC facility. HRS calculated that SST would have to perform 2,463 procedures by the year 1986 in order to break even financially, and therefore that there were a significant number of procedures available to support the need for an additional ambulatory surgery facility. Existing hospitals in Hillsborough County currently perform surgery on an outpatient basis. As indicated above, some 18 percent of all surgeries, or 10,276 procedures, were reported as outpatient in the 1981-82 reporting period by Hillsborough County facilities, including the petitioner. With the exception of the petitioner's four dedicated operating rooms and two more at an area hospital, the remaining existing operating rooms are not used exclusively for outpatient surgeries, but are available for such surgery. Many existing hospitals are currently in the process of expanding their outpatient services. These expansion efforts generally involve new pre-admission, pre-operative and recovery room beds and reception areas for ambulatory surgical patients, and not new dedicated operating rooms for outpatients. Among those receiving recent Certificates of Need to expand their outpatient services are Tampa General Hospital, St. Joseph's Hospital, Brandon Community Hospital and Humana's Women's Hospital. University Community Hospital is also active in the performance of outpatient surgical procedures. Depending upon the sufficiency and efficiency of management and staff, a freestanding ambulatory surgery center offers some advantages over outpatient surgery performed in a hospital operating room utilized for both inpatients and outpatients. The freestanding facility may have staff surgeons and anesthesiologists with specialized outpatient surgery training. Total overhead costs are likely to be less, thus resulting in reduced patient costs. Since the operating room staff effort is continually focused on outpatient surgery only, management problems may be reduced, thus making the experience more pleasant for the patient, his family and the surgeon. Patients will experience less waiting times as there will not be as many emergencies as in a hospital setting or as much "bumping" of an elective surgery outpatient in an ambulatory center. If properly and efficiently managed, there may be less danger of cross-infection in the freestanding facility. The petitioner ASC is a freestanding facility built in 1979 and located adjacent to the University of South Florida in Tampa. It occupies 14,350 square feet, has four operating rooms, a special procedures room, several examination rooms, 12 recovery beds, 8 pre- and post-operative beds, waiting rooms and administrative and business office areas. Staff privileges are held by 157 surgeons from the Tampa area. At the time of the hearing, 15 more surgeons had applied for staff privileges. Its total caseload for the first eleven months of operation was 257. Cases performed in 1980 increased to 420. In 1981 and 1982, ASC performed 1,172 and 1,217 procedures, respectively. For the first seven months of 1983, 1,191 procedures were performed, for a utilization rate of approximately 25 percent. ASC has no formal, regular budgeted marketing program. It has received accreditation from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS issue a Certificate of Need to Surgical Services of Tampa, Inc. to construct and operate a freestanding, four operating room ambulatory surgery center in Hillsborough County. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 22nd day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: F. Phillip Blank and Robert A. Weiss, Esquires 241 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Claire D. Dryfuss, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred W. Baggett and Michael J. Cherniga, Esquires 101 East College Avenue P.O. Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner, Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital (Englewood), is a 100 bed general acute care hospital located in Englewood, Florida. Englewood is owned and operated by Columbia/HCA Health Care (Columbia), a for-profit corporation. Englewood operates an outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in a mobile unit located in the hospital parking lot. Patients and some physicians have been reluctant to use the mobile unit. Venice Hospital, Inc. (Venice) is a not-for-profit, community owned hospital with 342 beds. Venice operates an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory for invasive cardiac diagnostic procedures. Venice has unsuccessfully applied twice for a certificate of need (CON) to provide open heart surgery. The Sarasota County Public Hospital Board (Sarasota Hospital Board) is a publicly elected, nine member organization, which is responsible for the operation and oversight of Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Memorial). Memorial is a 952 bed hospital with services including inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Memorial is located in Sarasota, Florida. Englewood, Venice, and Memorial are all located in Sarasota County which is in the Agency for Health Care Administration Planning District 8. There are nine other inpatient cardiac catheterization programs in District 8. The existing inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are distributed as follows: Sarasota County (3); Charlotte County (3); Lee County (4); Collier County (1). Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency which administers CON laws in Florida. The Agency published on February 4, 1994, a fixed need pool projection for inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, showing a need for three additional programs in District 8 for the batch in which Englewood's application was reviewed. This calculation counted an earlier application of Englewood as approved. THE PROJECT Englewood proposes to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, placing inside the hospital facility the equipment which is currently located in its mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory. Englewood timely filed the letter of intent, CON application, and response to omissions for CON Number 7663. The Agency originally denied the application because a previous application by Englewood for inpatient cardiac catheterization services had been granted. The previous application proposed to keep the equipment in the mobile unit and build a walkway from the mobile unit to the hospital facility. Englewood withdrew its application for the previous application. The Agency has filed an official notice of changing its position to support Englewood's CON Application Number 7663. NEED FOR THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE LOCAL AND STATE HEALTH PLANS The 1993 Florida State Health Plan provides four allocation preferences relevant to the review of the certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes the establishment of both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services provided that a need for open heart surgery is indicated. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to establish a new cardiac catheterization program if the applicant can demonstrate that patients are currently seeking cardiac catheterization services outside the respective county or HRS district. Preference shall be given to hospitals with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share criteria. Preference shall be given to an applicant who agrees to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has projected that charity and indigent care for cardiac catheterizations at less than 1.0 percent of total revenue. Given Englewood's past history, 1.0 percent of total revenue is a gross overstatement. At the final hearing, Englewood stated that it would not agree to condition the CON on Englewood providing charity and indigent care equal to 1.0 percent of the total revenue. The Agency's 1992 Hospital Financial Data showed that Englewood's reported charity and uncompensated care was approximately .09 percent and .06 percent of total revenues for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, respectively. Englewood has agreed to provide adult cardiac catheterization services to anyone in need without ability to pay; thus, Englewood is entitled to a partial preference for providing services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has not demonstrated that it should receive a preference for the other three factors. The 1993 District 8 Allocation Factors Report addresses the following preferences relevant to the review of certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services. Preference shall be given to applicat- ions for new or expanded cardiac catheterization services that clearly indicate the impact of the proposed services on other health providers offering similar services in the same area. Preference shall be given to applicants which agree to provide services to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has agreed to provide services to all patients without ability to pay and is entitled to a partial preference for the second factor in the district plan. AVAILABILITY, QUALITY OF CARE, EFFICIENCY, APPROPRIATENESS, ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENT OF UTILIZATION, AND ADEQUACY OF LIKE EXISTING HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE SERVICE DISTRICT. Englewood's proposed inpatient cardiac catheterization program would not adversely affect the quality of care provided by the cardiac catheterization programs at Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Venice Hospital. Memorial has a comprehensive cardiac catheterization program. It operates three dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratories. The Memorial laboratories provide diagnostic catheterizations as well as all available therapeutic catheterization techniques. Prior to performing a diagnostic catheterization, cardiologists are able to determine with a high degree of confidence and reliability whether a patient with cardiovascular disease will require, during a particular hospitalization, therapeutic intervention, e.g. angioplasty or open heart surgery. Cardiologists rely on an array of sophisticated non-invasive diagnostic tests in making such determinations. When a cardiologist determines that a patient is not sufficiently ill to require therapeutic intervention, the patient will customarily receive a diagnostic catheterization on an outpatient basis. During the last several years, there has been a shift in Sarasota County from inpatient catheterization to outpatient catheterization. In fact, the Medicare program requires that Medicare patients receive outpatient catheterization, unless a patient's medical condition requires inpatient care. Normally only patients with unstable medical conditions receive inpatient cardiac catheterization. That group of patients is likely to require therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission to resolve their medical problems. Between 80 to 90 percent of patients who receive inpatient cardiac catheterization receive therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission. If an unstable patient presents at a facility which lacks the capability to perform therapeutic intervention, it is in the best medical practice to stabilize the patient and then transfer the patient to a facility which can perform both the diagnostic catheterization and the therapeutic intervention. If the unstable patient requires intervention in the form of angioplasty, it is in the patient's best interest to receive both the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during a single visit to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The provision of both procedures in one visit enhances comfort, safety, and efficiency. It is Memorial's practice to provide both types of services in one visit to the catheterization laboratory when possible. Adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are available within a maximum automobile travel time of one hour, under average travel conditions, for at least 90 percent of District 8's population. The Sarasota Hospital Board's policy is to provide cardiac catheterization services at Memorial to all residents without regard to their ability to pay. In its most recently completed fiscal year at the time of the final hearing, the Sarasota Hospital Board provided $268,000 of charity care and $720,000 of Medicaid care, related to cardiac catheterization patients. In its application, Englewood stated: "There is no evidence to indicate that the efficiency, appropriateness and adequacy of adult inpatient cardiac catheterizations services in District VIII are less than adequate." Each of the seven hospitals in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, with the exception of Englewood, operate an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. There is excess capacity at the existing cardiac laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. A single cardiac catheterization laboratory can safely perform approximately 1500 cases annually. Three of the existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties operate a volume between 300-400 cases annually: Fawcett, St. Joseph's, and Doctors'. Fawcett is owned and operated by Columbia. Venice operates the existing laboratory closest to Englewood. Venice's catheterization laboratory has the capacity to perform 1,500 procedures annually. Over the last five years, the number of cases has grown from 500 to approximately 800, where it has leveled off, leaving almost half the laboratory's capacity unused. Venice's catheterization laboratory is available and accessible to Englewood residents. The catheterization laboratory at Venice has been serving Englewood patients and will continue to do so. Venice currently serves a significant share of the market in three of the six zip codes identified by Englewood as its service area. There is adequate capacity at the existing laboratories in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties to treat the existing volume of cardiac catheterization patients, as well as the volume that Englewood proposes to serve. Patients in the Englewood area will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient cardiac catheterization services in the absence of Englewood's proposed program. Under these circumstances it is more appropriate and less expensive to the health care system as a whole to fully utilize existing catheterization laboratories. ABILITY OF APPLICANT TO PROVIDE QUALITY CARE AND APPLICANT'S RECORD OF PROVIDING QUALITY OF CARE Englewood has a record of providing appropriate quality of care to its patients. Englewood is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. Englewood submitted a written protocol for transfer of emergency patients to a hospital providing open heart surgery within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions as part of its application. Englewood's cardiac catheterization program policies and procedures manual is appropriate. The equipment which Englewood proposes for its inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory was purchased from Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center in Fort Myers, Florida, where it had been used successfully for approximately one year. The equipment is currently being used in Englewood's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. The equipment uses analog imaging, and includes video playback to allow instant review. Digital imaging is newer technology than analog imaging and allows the image of the cardiac areas to be magnified, processed and measured while the physician is performing the catheterization. Regardless whether analog or digital imaging is used the physician will rely on a 35mm film which is made during the catheterization procedure to make the diagnosis. The digital imaging equipment is more expensive than the analog imaging equipment. Although, digital imaging is nice to have, it is not necessary to provide quality cardiac catheterization services. Englewood has plans to move the outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory from the mobile unit to inside the hospital facilities. As of the date of the final hearing, Englewood had not begun construction of this project to relocate the outpatient laboratory. The cost of renovating space for the cardiac catheterization laboratory and moving the equipment inside is estimated to be $400,000. Two or three people are required to assist the physician perform an inpatient cardiac catheterization. One person circulates, moving outside the sterile area surrounding the procedure table to get medications, log information and generally oversee and monitor the patient's condition. The staff should include cardiovascular technicians, who may be but do not have to be nurses. Englewood proposes the following staffing and salary: FTE'S YEAR 1 HOURLY RATE SALARIES FTE'S YEAR 2 HOURLY RATE SALARIES RNS 3.0 19.92 118,061 5.0 19.68 204,672 Nurse Manager 1.0 0 1.0 0 Cath Lab Tech 2.0 14.43 60,029 2.0 15.01 62,442 Subtotal 6.0 178,090 8.0 267,114 Lab Director 1.0 0 1.0 0 Subtotal 1.0 0 1.0 0 Unit Secretary 0.5 7.96 8,278 1.0 8.28 17,222 Subtotal 0.5 8,278 1.0 TOTAL 7.5 186,368 10.0 284,336 The radiology technician's job is to assist with quality assurance, help maintain and oversee the equipment, and monitor safety. The radiology technician does not have to be present in the laboratory during procedures. Englewood already employs a radiology technician in its radiology department. This technician has had training for cardiac catheterization laboratory duties. Dr. DeGuia currently performs the duties of a medical director and will continue to do so if the inpatient laboratory is established. The nurse manager who is currently employed as the nursing manager for the intensive care, progressive care and outpatient will be utilized in the inpatient laboratory as well. The staff will be cross trained in each position's functions. Englewood will have the assistance of Fawcett Memorial Hospital and Southwest Heart Institute in staffing and training when needed. Englewood's proposed staffing will provide an adequate number of properly trained personnel. The salaries Englewood proposes to pay its staff are reasonable and competitive. UTILIZATION In its application, Englewood projects that the first year of operation of the inpatient laboratory, there will be a total of 236 cardiac catheterizations performed consisting of 132.9 inpatients and 103.1 outpatients. In the second year of operation, Englewood projects the total cardiac catheterizations to be 345 with 194.3 being inpatient and 150.7 being outpatient. Englewood has included six specific zip code in its service area. Based on Englewood's experience with MDC 05 diagnoses1, Englewood's expert witness Scott Hopes opined that Englewood's market share for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services would be as follows: ZIPCODE MARKET SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 33981 43.8 percent 34223 50 percent 34224 65.2 percent 34287 6.4 percent 34293 2.0 percent In order to project inpatient utilization of the Englewood laboratory, it is appropriate to rely upon the historical pool of patients in the Englewood service area who have received inpatient catheterization during a hospital admission, without receiving angioplasty or open heart surgery during that admission. Englewood proposes to serve primarily "low risk" inpatients who are not expected to require intervention during that hospital admission. For the period July 1991 through June 1992, there were 490 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients residing in Englewood's service area. For the period July 1992 through June 1993, there were 479 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients in the same service area. In its application, Englewood applied an aggregate market share to the total number of inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on the residents of the proposed service area. This method distorts the projected number of inpatient procedures which could be performed by Englewood because of the variability of the market shares in each zip code. Based on the method employed in Englewood's application, Englewood would have performed 145 and 160 inpatient cardiac catheterizations in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 periods, respectively. When one applies the actual market share by zip code to the actual number of procedures performed on patients from each zip code, a more accurate projection based on historical data can be made as shown in the chart below. ZIP CODE MARKET SHARE 1991-1992 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 1992-1993 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 21 11 18 10 33981 43.8 percent 35 15 29 12 34223 50.0 percent 68 34 72 36 34224 65.2 percent 42 27 34 22 34287 6.4 percent 145 9 146 9 34293 2.0 percent 179 4 180 4 100 93 Englewood performed 50 outpatient cardiac catheterizations in 1994. This low utilization is based on the physical location of the outpatient facility in the hospital parking lot and the lack of marketing. Fifty procedures is not a representative number of the outpatient procedures which Englewood could expect if the laboratory was located inside the hospital and the program was marketed effectively. The application states that in 1992 the percentage of inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures of the total cardiac catheterizations performed in hospitals with an inpatient program in District 8 was 56.33 percent.2 Thus based on Englewood's market share by zip code, the total amount of cardiac catheterizations which Englewood could have expected in 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 would have been 177 and 165, respectively. In its application, Englewood uses three different methodologies to project the number of cardiac catheterizations Englewood could expect during its first and second year of operation. Method 1 (pgs. 28 and 32 of the Response to Omissions) subtracts the amount of catheterizations Englewood would have expected in 1991-1992 from the amount it would have expected in 1992-1993 and increases the projection each year by this amount to project the number of catheterizations for the first two years of operation. Using Method 1 would result in a decrease in the number of cardiac catheterizations each year because the number of cardiac catheterizations declined by 12 procedures from 1991-1992 to 1992-1993. Method 2 (pgs. 30 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) employs an annual increase of 8 percent. This increase is the lowest annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 208 procedures for 1996 and 224 procedures for 1997. Method 3 (pgs. 31 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) uses a 12.78 percent annual increase based on the average annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 237 procedures for 1996 and 267 procedures for 1997. Using any of the three methods to project the number of procedures to be performed in the second year, Englewood will not perform a minimum of 300 catheterization procedures by the end of the second year of operation of the inpatient laboratory. The Intermedic Health Center is a large multi-specialty group with a five cardiologist heart group based in Port Charlotte. Intermedic has offices in Englewood. The heart group was to begin regular office schedules in Englewood in February, 1994. The group plans to recruit one or two additional physicians to staff the office. At the time of final hearing the physicians of Intermedic's heart group performed cardiac catheterizations at hospitals other than Petitioner's because some of the cases were inpatient and some of their outpatients were uncomfortable with a portable laboratory. For 1995, Intermedic projected 90 to 100 cases; thereby resulting in some increase in business with Englewood relating to cardiac catheterizations. The population in the Englewood service area consists of a large number of residents who are 65 or older. This segment of the population is more likely to have a high demand for cardiac catheterization than a younger segment of the population. The 65 or older category is a fast growing part of the population in the Englewood service area. IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROGRAM Englewood has the financial ability to fund the construction of the project. The pro forma statement contained in the CON application is flawed. Englewood has double counted a profit layer that it is already enjoying from inpatients that it transfers to an inpatient catheterization provider. Englewood does not account for the contribution margin attaching to Englewood's inpatient portion of their care before transfer. In projecting its revenues from outpatient utilization, Englewood has included in its figures outpatient catheterizations it would perform whether or not its application is approved rather than basing their pro forma on the incremental difference attributable to approval of an inpatient program. The projected revenues contained in the pro forma are suspect. First, the proposed procedure charges shown on the outpatient service revenues page of Englewood's application are high. It is unusual to find outpatient procedure charges that are higher than the inpatient procedure charges. In Table 7 in the application, Englewood asserts that patient days for Medicaid and private pay will net the highest revenues per patient day. Typically those two payor sources are at the bottom of the list of revenue producers than the top. Englewood's pro forma understates revenue deductions by assuming Medicaid and private pay reimbursement that is unrealistic and by failing to take into account anticipated growth in managed care. Englewood's financial expert agreed that managed care will see significant growth over the next five years. Because the pro forma overstates net revenue, it understates revenue deductions. Englewood has understated expenses. The marginal cost per case is understated, relocation expenses are understated, and the nurse manager's time is not allocated to the expense side of the pro forma. The State Agency Action Report also calls into question the adequacy of the expenses in Englewood's pro forma.3 Based on the flawed pro forma, Englewood has not demonstrated that the project is financially feasible. OTHER STATUTORY CRITERIA The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including consideration of the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction are reasonable. The proposed design of Englewood's inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory is reasonable and appropriate. Englewood submitted the list of capital projects required by Section 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1993); the audited financial statements required by Section 408.037(3), Florida Statutes (1993); and the resolution required by Section 408.037(4), Florida Statutes (1993). I. STANDING OF VENICE AND MEMORIAL If Englewood were to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, both Venice and Memorial would have patients diverted from their programs to Englewood's. Based on the projections contained in Englewood's application, Venice would lose 82 catheterization procedures in the second year of operation of Englewood's proposed program, resulting in a net profit lose of $234,000. Although Englewood's application projections are inaccurate, the application does contemplate that Venice would lose procedures as a result of the implementation of Englewood's proposed program. In order for Englewood to reach its projected volume of procedures, approximately 40 to 50 procedures would have to be redirected annually from Memorial to Englewood. There is also a strong potential that Memorial would lose angioplasty and open heart surgery cases as well. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center (SWFRMC), in Fort Myers, is owned by Columbia. It is a tertiary cardiovascular referral center for other Columbia hospitals in Southwest Florida. The development of an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at Englewood would assist in the development of referral patterns from the Englewood area to SWFRMC for angioplasty and open heart surgery. It would be in Columbia's interest to encourage utilization of SWFRMC's cardiovascular services by patients residing in the Southwest Florida area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the application of Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital's for Certificate of Need 7663 to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, 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 18th day of December, 1995.
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Petitioners should be awarded certificates of need authorizing the establishment of inpatient cardiac catheterization services at their respective facilities. As a result of stipulations of the parties, matters for consideration with regard to award of those certificates of need primarily involve a determination as to whether Petitioners' applications meet rule criteria relating to need (numeric and non-numeric), provision of a written protocol or transfer agreement, and utilization standards.
Findings Of Fact The legislature has deregulated the establishment of outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories (cardiac cath labs), but a certificate of need (CON) is required before a hospital can operate an inpatient cardiac cath lab. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) has not approved, as the result of initial agency action, a new cardiac cath lab CON in HRS' Service District Five since 1977. The Parties Palms Petitioner NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Palms of Pasadena Hospital (Palms), is a 310 bed acute care hospital located in Pasadena, Florida. Pasadena is geographically located in the southern portion of Pinellas County, Florida. Pasadena, though geographically small, is one of the most densely populated cities in the United States. Within one half mile of Palms are 10,000 people of whom 60 percent are 65 years of age or older. Palms is a full service hospital with an extensive range of medical and surgical services, including a 24 hour emergency room; a coronary care intensive care unit; a surgical intensive care unit; and a respiratory intensive care unit. Palms also offers a full spectrum of non-invasive cardiology services including electrocardiography, echocardiagraphy, nuclear medicine, stress testing and 24 hour monitoring. Palms has five cardiologists, four of them invasive cardiologists, on its active staff and five cardiologists on its courtesy staff. The four invasive cardiologists would utilize a cardiac cath lab or program at Palms. Palms is situated on 13 acres with a main hospital complex that encompasses over 400,000 square feet. There are over 300 physicians on Palms' medical staff, representing virtually every medical specialty. The hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. HRS Service District Number Five, which encompasses Palms location, is composed of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. The service district is heavily populated by persons age 65 and over; the persons who, nationally, have the highest rate of cardiac catheterization admissions per 1,000 persons. The rate for deaths resulting from major cardiovascular diseases and heart disease in Pinellas County is 150 percent above the rate for such deaths within the entire State of Florida. Notably, thirty percent of the approximately 200,000 persons within Palms' primary service area are age 65 or older. Further, sixty-eight percent of Palms' patients are medicare patients with an average age of 77 to 78 years. The average age of the medicare population at other hospitals in Pinellas County ranges from 72 to 73 years of age. During 1987 and 1988, 516 inpatients at Palms required cardiac cath services (238 in 1987 and 278 in 1988). A diagnostic cardiac catheterization (cardiac cath) is an invasive medical operation in which a catheter is passed via vascular access in the arm or leg into the heart for purposes of diagnosing cardiovascular diseases or measuring blood pressure flow. Significant advances in the technology of cardiac catheterization permits usage of cardiac caths in the emergency treatment of heart attacks through injection of thrombolytic agents directly into the blood clot causing the heart attack. While these medications can be given intravenously, such an option is not available in the case of elderly patients, who run a higher risk of internal bleeding as a side effect of the drug, and patients who delay seeking medical attention after the onset of a heart attack. Approximately 30 percent of the patients arriving at Palms' emergency room have a cardiac related problem. The number of these patients who are candidates for intravenous injection of thrombolytic agents is small. Approval of Palms' application would significantly improve the quality of care of these patients by permitting the injection of thrombolytic agents directly into the blood clot causing the heart attack, a permitted medical procedure in the process of administering a diagnostic cardiac cath. After the onset of a heart attack, there exists a six hour window during which potentially life-saving drugs can be administered. Due to the possible side effects of these drugs, cardiologists must often perform a cardiac cath to diagnose the ailment prior to administering the drugs. Consequently, patients who present themselves for treatment at Palms several hours after the onset of heart attack symptoms may be precluded from receiving these drugs in view of the lack of a cardiac cath lab or program at Palms. Mease Petitioner Mease Health Care, Inc., (Mease) owns and operates Mease Hospital Dunedin and Mease Hospital Countryside. Mease also operates clinics located in New Port Richey, Palm Harbor, Countryside and Dunedin, Florida. These clinics serve a combined 350,000 patients per year. Mease Hospital Dunedin is a 278 bed facility located in Dunedin, Florida. The Mease Dunedin Clinic houses approximately 60 physicians. Mease Countryside Hospital, opened in 1985, consists of 100 beds and is located approximately eight miles from Mease Hospital Dunedin. Approximately 30 physicians have offices at the Mease Countryside Clinic. Most physicians practicing in the clinics have hospital privileges only at the Mease facilities. Another 100 physicians on the staff of these two hospitals have practices in the surrounding area and admit patients to the Mease facilities. Physicians housed in the Mease Countryside and Dunedin Clinics provide a significant source of patient referrals for the two hospitals, since most physicians practicing in the two clinics have hospital privileges only at the Mease facilities. Ninety percent of patients hospitalized by physicians in the two clinics are hospitalized in Mease Dunedin or Mease Countryside hospital facilities. Mease currently operates a cardiac cath lab at its Mease Dunedin campus on an outpatient basis. This existing facility could be utilized by Mease for inpatient catheterization. The existing outpatient cath lab is outfitted with a Phillips Digital Cardiac Imaging System, the most medically advanced equipment of this type in Pinellas County. Mease's current outpatient cath lab meets all applicable standards for the operation of an inpatient cath lab and is adequately staffed to perform 600 cardiac caths per year. There is no difference in the physical layout of an inpatient cath lab versus an outpatient cath lab. Mease also provides diagnostic services such as echocardiography and nuclear cardiology. Growth in cardiology services experienced by Mease is consistent with the provision of these additional services. Morton Plant Morton F. Hospital, Inc., (Morton Plant) is a not-for-profit 740 bed general acute care hospital spread among twelve buildings on a 36 acre campus in Clearwater, Florida, approximately three or four miles from Mease. Morton Plant offers a wide range of health care services, including cardiac cath, open heart surgery, a cardiac rehabilitation program, post-cardiac surgery recovery areas and intensive coronary care units. HRS HRS is the state agency which is responsible for administering Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes, the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", under which applications for Certificates of Need (CON) are filed, reviewed, and either granted or denied by that department. Petitioners' Applications The applications of Mease and Palms, seeking a CON to implement inpatient cardiac cath services were filed with HRS on September 28, 1988. After initial review, HRS sent omissions letters to the applicants on October 13, 1988. Responses from Mease and Palms were made on November 11, 1988, and HRS denied both applications on January 12, 1989. Both Petitioners timely requested formal hearings regarding the denials. "Old Rule Versus New Rule" HRS has adopted procedures governing its review of applications, such as those of the petitioners, for CONs authorizing the establishment of inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. These procedures include HRS' numeric methodology for estimating need for cardiac cath labs or programs. This methodology has traditionally been found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e). On April 22, 1988, HRS published a proposed "new" rule containing a new methodology for estimating cardiac cath program need. A key component of the new rule is the use of "admissions" to a cardiac cath program, as opposed to the old rule's use of "procedures", to determine numeric need for additional CONs. The new rule was timely challenged by two parties in proceedings before the Division Of Administrative Hearings. However, the matters in dispute between HRS and the challengers were resolved and the proceedings voluntarily dismissed. Subsequently, HRS filed the new rule as revised with the Secretary of State's office and published the new rule on July 29, 1988. The new revised rule was challenged within 21 days of publication pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, by three new parties in Division Of Administrative Hearings Cases numbered 88-3970R, 88-4018R and 88-4019R. A Final Order eventually issued in those cases finding the rule challenges to have been timely brought pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and finding the revisions to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as a result of noncompliance by HRS with requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Florida Medical Center v. DHRS, 11 FALR 3904 (Final Order issued June 29, 1989). The Final Order in Florida Medical Center has been appealed. The parties to this proceeding were permitted to present evidence of need for the respective applications under both the new and old versions of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e) Florida Administrative Code, although all the parties were informed by order dated September 20, 1989, that the undersigned intended to apply those provisions of the administrative rule criteria in existence prior to the successful challenge to the proposed amendments treated in the Final Order issued in Florida Medical Center. Stipulations Palms and Mease stipulate that each other's application meets the quality of care criteria set forth in Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Morton Plant disputes only Mease's ability to insure quality of care through sufficient utilization. HRS stipulates that both applications meet quality of care criteria with the sole exception that neither applicant included a "written protocol" as noted on page II of the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). The parties stipulate that the requirement for a written protocol exists within the "new" version of the cardiac cath rule and not in the original version of the rule. The parties further stipulate that the terms "written protocol" and "transfer agreement" are not defined in either version of the cardiac cath rule. The parties stipulate that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes, (relating to operation of joint, cooperative or shared health care resources) are not applicable to either of the applications in this case. HRS stipulates that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(f), Florida Statutes, (regarding the need within the service district of an applicant for special equipment and services not reasonably accessible within adjoining areas) are not applicable to either the Palms or Mease applications. Morton Plant contends these criteria are in issue with regard to Mease's application. All parties stipulate that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(g), Florida Statutes, (relating to need for research and educational facilities in conjunction with the applications) are not in issue. Criteria relating to manpower and resources contained in Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes, are not deemed applicable to the applications by HRS or the Petitioners. Morton Plant contends that these criteria are in issue with regard to the availability of necessary health manpower resources insofar as the Mease application is concerned. Petitioners agree that their applications meet immediate and long term financial feasibility requirements of Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. HRS also joins in that agreement, provided costs associated with the cardiac cath lab director at the lab proposed by Palms does not affect the financial feasibility of Palms' project. Morton Plant contests the long term feasibility of Mease's project. All parties agree that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes, relating to the costs and methods of proposed construction and equipment acquisition, are met by Palms' application and are not applicable to Mease's application. Criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes, relating to provision of services to Medicare and medically indigent patients, are met by the Petitioners according to HRS. The other parties contend these criteria are in issue. The parties agree that requirements of Section 381.705(2)(c) and (e), Florida Statutes, (relating to new construction alternatives and proposals for additional nursing bed capacity) are not applicable to the applications at issue in this case. The parties agree that the licensure and accreditation of the parties are not in issue and need not be proven. HRS stipulates that Palms' application and Mease's application satisfy all rule criteria under both the old and new versions of the cardiac cath rule with exception of those criteria relating to need (numeric and non-numeric), a written protocol or transfer agreement, and utilization standards set forth in the rule. Availability of existing services Palms Palms' patients requiring the services of a cardiac cath lab must be transferred by ambulance to other facilities where such service is available. Most of these transfers are made to All Children's Hospital (All Children's) in St. Petersburg, Florida, the nearest facility with cardiac cath services. Cath procedures are performed at that facility by cardiologists possessing staff privileges at Palms, as well as All Children's. On average, the transfer of a patient from Palms to All Children's takes an average of one and a half to two hours, although the actual automobile travel time is less than an hour. After a determination that a cardiac cath is needed, arrangements for the transfer involve negotiating an available time at All Children's and preparing the patient for transfer. Patient medical records are copied, consent forms signed, explanations given to patients and intravenous administration of fluids is begun. Because of their unstable condition, specialized nurses, capable of interpreting cardiac monitors and administering drugs associated with cardiac problems, must accompany these cardiac patients in the ambulance. All Children's ambulance is often not available for transfers from Palms. In those instances, Palms must provide an ambulance and nurse. If the need for such a transfer occurs in the middle of a nursing shift, Palms must pull a nurse from another unit in the hospital to accompany the patient. If plans for the transfer are known in advance of the beginning of a nursing shift, additional nursing staff is arranged for that shift. Some patients experience difficulties in the course of such a transfer. The number of intravenous applications (IVs) attached to a patient is limited during an ambulance transfer, consequently some patients must have some IVs removed. During transportation of the patient, IVs are often shaken loose, medications become unbalanced, other medical appliances become disconnected and some patients experience blood loss as well as a loss of blood pressure. Some patients have required blood transfusions upon arrival at the cardiac cath facilities. In view of the associated difficulties, some cardiovascular patients at Palms are simply too sick to undergo a transfer to another facility where cardiac cath services are available. If a cardiac cath lab or program existed at Palms, an estimated $68,000 in transportation charges would be saved in the first year alone. All Children's, a pediatric hospital, is the only hospital in the State of Florida that performs cardiac cath procedures on both adults and children in the same lab. Since All Children's is a tertiary, regional referral center, more than two thirds of the pediatric diagnostic cardiac caths are performed on nonresidents of the service district. Over 55 percent of all diagnostic cardiac caths at All Children's are performed on nonresidents of the district. Angioplasty is a therapeutic, as opposed to diagnostic, cardiac cath procedure. Such cardiac caths can only be performed at facilities providing open heart surgery services. All Children's is the only hospital in South Pinellas County able to perform angioplasty. All Children's has two cardiac cath labs. Both are heavily utilized. From July 1987 through June 1988, there were 1,268 cardiac admissions to the two labs. All Children's historic rate of 2.12 cardiac cath procedures per admission equates to 2,688 procedures performed on these patients. While this number of "procedures" is in excess of the minimum 600 "procedures" per lab standard applicable under the numeric need methodology used by HRS prior to publication of the proposed admission-based need determination formula, different definitions of the term "procedure" are ascribed to the term in accordance with the context of its usage. Under HRS' proposed admission-based need determination formula, there were 1,099 adult cardiac cath admissions to All Children's program from April 1987 through March 1988. This number of admissions is substantially in excess of the 300 admissions per program standard required for program operation under the proposed new rule policy. Currently 15 cardiologists normally use All Children's two labs on a regular basis. Three of these cardiologists deal with pediatric patients. A fourth pediatric cardiologist is being recruited by All Children's. This additional cardiologist will perform electrophysiology, a cardiac cath procedure involving use of multiple catheters. Electrophysiology studies are extremely time-consuming and this additional cardiologist's lab usage will contribute to present lab access difficulty. Presently, All Children's has a "block time" schedule for the different cardiologists on the active staff at the hospital. Each cardiologist has a scheduled block of time for usage of the cardiac cath labs. As a result, a cardiologist can not have a patient, admitted during the previous night, catheterized on a particular day unless that physician's block of time happens to fall on that day. This process effectively eliminates a majority of time during the week when a cardiologist may schedule catheterization for a patient. Pediatric cardiac caths require more lab time than adult cardiac caths and All Children's gives preference in scheduling caths to pediatric patients. Further, All Children's facilities are blocked all day on Mondays for pediatric patients. It is not unusual, in view of the preference given pediatric patients and emergency cath requirements, for adult cardiac cath patients to be "bumped" from the schedule after their arrival at All Children's. The length of hospitalization of adult cardiac cath patients therefore increases, along with a substantial increase in the patient's medical care costs. The decision of All Children's to block both of the hospital's labs for pediatric caths each Monday has resulted in the postponement of cardiac caths for Palms' patients until Monday night or Tuesday. The result is that weekend patients from Palms have a lengthened hospital stay, assuming the patients are stable and can endure the sometimes two or three days wait for a catheterization study. Palms' cardiologists also experience difficulty placing their patients after catheterization at All Children's. Since All Children's is a pediatric hospital, there are no adult beds with the exception of eight intensive care beds which are usually filled by open heart and other surgical patients. As a result of the lack of available beds at All Children's, alternatives are to transfer Palms' patients to Bayfront Medical Center, a facility adjoining All Children's, following catheterization, or return them by ambulance to Palms. This latter alternative is often followed since Bayfront Medical Center is frequently without available beds. Since a significant percentage of diagnostic cardiac cath patients must later undergo a therapeutic catheterization, Palms' patients, who are returned to Palms after diagnostic catheterization, must be transferred back to All Children's for additional cath work. In one instance, a Palms' inpatient was transferred a total of nine times. The difficulty of access to the cardiac cath labs at All Children's is particularly acute during the first quarter of each year when many elderly people come to the St. Petersburg area to enjoy the warmer climate. Significant health care risks to delaying diagnostic cardiac caths include instances at Palms where patients with unstable angina have suffered large myocardial infarctions before their transfer to another facility's cardiac cath lab. These risks are enhanced for Palms' cardiac inpatients, many of whom have multiple health problems. Palms' inpatients have a higher comorbidity index than all other hospitals in the service district. The approximately 30 primary care physicians on the active staff of Palms are not on the active staff of any other hospital. As a result, they are unable to follow their patients and continue treating their other ailments when those patients are transferred to another facility for cardiac catheterization work. If these primary care physicians could follow their patients, the quality of care would be improved. In addition to difficulty obtaining timely access to All Children's cath labs, the volume of work performed at the lab has resulted in cardiac cath technicians requesting, on at least one occasion, that a catheterization be stopped due to the fatigue of the technicians. Approval of additional inpatient diagnostic cath labs or programs in the area would reduce or eliminate the occasions of such stoppage in the future. Cardiac patients admitted to hospitals in the service district which do not have inpatient cardiac cath services wait, on the average, 1.5 days longer in the hospital before they receive catheterization than do those patients admitted to hospitals in the district providing such services. As a result, patients undergoing cardiac cath procedures and staying in a hospital without inpatient cardiac lab services average a stay which is 1.6 days longer than patients staying in a hospital with inpatient cath services. If Palms were able to provide inpatient cath services, an average additional charge of $1,800 per patient undergoing cardiac cath would be eliminated. This equates to a total savings of $200,000 to $300,000 in medical costs from the reduction of the average length of stay as the result of an inpatient program at Palms. Since hospitalized patients are at increased risk for developing nosocomial illness, diseases or infections contracted during a hospital stay, reducing the length of stay also lessens the patient's opportunity to develop such an illness. Approval of the Palms application, while temporarily lowering the number of diagnostic cardiac caths performed at All Children's, would eventually result in an increase in the number of cardiac caths performed at All Children's. This is particularly applicable to the increase in therapeutic caths that would occur at All Children's as the result of establishment of a diagnostic inpatient cardiac cath lab at Palms. The elderly and seasonal population which would be served by an inpatient cath lab at Palms would result in increased referrals from Palms to All Children's for therapeutic cath services. Two other hospitals in South Pinellas County operate inpatient diagnostic cardiac cath labs, St. Anthony's Hospital (St. Anthony's) and Humana Hospital Northside (Humana). Since neither hospital provides therapeutic cath services, a patient transferred there from Palms for the purpose of a diagnostic cath must later be transferred a second time to All Children's in the event therapeutic services are required. The diagnostic cardiac cath lab at St. Anthony's is owned and operated by the Rogers Heart Foundation, a private non- profit foundation. The emphasis at the Foundation on cardiac research has led to a very low use rate in its cath lab. Additionally, staff privileges are limited to those cardiologists willing to serve on rotation as an emergency room physician. As a result of the reluctance of cardiologists, who have limited their practice to cardiology, to meet the emergency room duty requirement, the staff of St. Anthony's is effectively a closed one. The cardiac cath equipment at St. Anthony's is out- dated and fails to produce quality images. Problems have been encountered by cardiologists with the quality of film developed by St. Anthony's cardiac cath lab. Consequently, the lack of growth and modernization of the St. Anthony's lab does not present a reasonable alternative to Palms' application. The alternative of Humana presents a shortage of intensive care and cardiac cath beds similar to that experience with All Children~s, especially during the winter months. Continued diagnostic catheterization of Palms patients at Humana will result in increased competition for an already insufficient number of beds. Humana is located even further from Palms than All Children's, worsening the current problems associated with transfer of Palms' patients to All Children's. Further, Humana, according to the rate of admissions to its cath lab in the second year of operation, will Substantially exceed the new proposed HRS policy of 300 admissions required to justify a program's operation. During 1988, Palms ranked fourth out of the 24 hospitals in the service district in the number of inpatients requiring diagnostic cardiac caths. If those hospitals operating cardiac cath labs are eliminated from the list, then Palms ranked first in the total number of inpatients requiring cath services at the remaining 17 hospitals. In 1988, Palms' 278 inpatients requiring diagnostic cardiac cath services was more than the 219 at St. Anthony's and the 174 for Humana's first year, even though those facilities had cath labs. Palms' total also exceeded the 201 patients requiring this service at both of the Mease hospital sites. The likelihood of discernable adverse impact on the cardiac cath programs at St. Anthony's and Humana as the result of establishing diagnostic cath services at Palms is small in view of the infrequent admission of Palms' patients to those programs. Serious problems will continue to be experienced by Palms' patients in obtaining inpatient diagnostic cardiac cath services if the Palms application is denied. In view of the demographics of the surrounding area and patient age composition at Palms, establishment of a diagnostic cardiac cath program in that hospital would result in an improvement of the standard of care received by inpatients there. The unique nature of All Children's primary mission as a pediatric hospital, and its inability to provide ready access to its cardiac cath labs by Palms' patients for the purpose of diagnostic cardiac cath services, coupled with other previously- noted access problems constitute exceptional and "not normal" circumstances sufficient to justify approval of a diagnostic cardiac cath lab at Palms without regard to numeric need requirements of either the "old" or "new" versions of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Mease Accessibility to health services has two aspects; geographical accessibility and financial accessibility. The "old" rule policy of HRS has a two hour travel standard within which a cardiac cath lab must be available. The proposed rule has a one hour standard. Morton Plant is approximately three or four miles from the Mease Dunedin campus. Both hospitals provide services to the same population. The Mease Countryside Campus is approximately eight miles from the Mease Dunedin campus. The considerable testimony regarding the problem and inconvenience of transporting patients for cardiac cath presented by Palms is not appropriate to Mease. The cardiac cath labs at Morton Plant are not overcrowded, although alternatives to that possibility are being contemplated in the future through the addition of another cardiac cath lab. Based upon projections presented at the final hearing, an additional cath lab may be necessary by 1991. The present labs are not utilized on the weekends except for emergencies and difficulty in scheduling a diagnostic or therapeutic cath is rarely encountered. However, a scheduling suggestion was made by Morton Plant officials, requesting that cathing cardiologists not schedule elective cardiac caths on Mondays and Fridays. But, Morton Plant has not implemented any rule making the cath labs unavailable for elective procedures at those times. One of the Morton Plant labs has been in operation since 1985 and the equipment in that lab is scheduled to be replaced in the fall of 1990. This refurbishment should eliminate concerns regarding reliability of that lab's machinery, although all maintenance of the equipment in both labs is conducted at night to permit both labs to be functional during the day. Mease opened an outpatient cardiac cath lab in April, 1989. Mease expects to perform 160 to 175 outpatient diagnostic caths in the first year of operation. The lab is not presently profitable. However, transfer of inpatients to other facilities for purpose of inpatient caths does impact negatively on Mease. Mease loses approximately $133,000 per year as the result of inpatient transfers, exclusive of ambulance fees. These losses represent the difference between the medicare reimbursement to Mease and the charges that Mease must pay to the other facility for provisions of the inpatient cath services. From October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1989, between 250 and 260 Mease inpatients were transferred to other facilities to receive inpatient caths. Ambulance cost per patient varies depending upon the destination facility which is generally either Largo Medical Center in Largo, Florida, for a charge of $436 round trip or Morton Plant for a round trip charge of $378. An estimated one hour is needed to make the transfer of a patient from Mease to Morton Plant, although actual travel time to the nearby facility is obviously much less. The services of those Mease nurses who accompany each patient are unavailable to Mease for other services for approximately two hours. The transfer of any inpatient to another hospital constitutes less than optimal care and can compromise patient safety as illustrated by one instance of the transfer of a Mease patient who suffered a major heart attack en route to another facility and became a "cardiac cripple." However, such examples with regard to accessibility to other facilities by Mease patients are not sufficient to constitute exceptional or not normal circumstances for purpose of granting the Mease application. Need For The Proposed Projects Prior to publication of the new proposed rule, HRS recognized that multiple procedures may be performed on a single patient during one admission to a cardiac cath lab. However, in the course of application of the old rule methodology to determine need for additional cardiac cath CONs, HRs did not, as a matter of operational policy, ascribe that same meaning to the term "procedures" in formula computations made to determine numeric need for those labs. Typically, a patient undergoes more than one procedure in the course of a cardiac cath. To determine an actual number of procedures, in the generic sense of the word, performed by existing cardiac cath labs in the service district, Mease and Palms subpoenaed information from all those labs. As a result of that effort, Mease and Palms have shown that 7,507 cardiac cath procedures were performed in the service district during the period July 1987 through June 1988. Of this total, approximately 5,081 were diagnostic cardiac caths. Cardiac cath lab admissions for diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac caths during the July 1987 through June 1988 period totaled 4,057 patients in the service district, averaging 1.85 procedures per cath lab admission. Similarly, diagnostic cardiac caths averaged 1.47 procedures per admission. A Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) is a combination of variable diagnoses codes and procedure codes that are used by Medicare to assign a fixed level of reimbursement to the type of medical services rendered by a provider. The term ICD-9CM Code is an acronym for the Internal Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification. The ICD-9 coding system is a classification for morbidity and mortality statistics which are modified for use in the United States for statistical collection. There are five diagnosis codes which identity conditions treated and three procedure codes identifying the type of treatment provided. The federal government and the State of Florida's Health Care Cost Containment Board (HCCCB) require that Florida hospitals maintain and report ICD-9-CM Code information. The American Hospital Association, with input from the federal Health Care Financing Administration, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the American Medical Records Association, publishes standards and rules to ensure uniformity in the reporting of ICD-9 information. Further, the Peer Review Organization, as part of its contract with the Health Standards Quality Bureau, reviews the accuracy of ICD-9 coding by hospitals. Florida hospitals report ICD-9 information to the HCCCB by filling out a Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Sheet for each patient. The HCCCB requires Florida hospitals to report up to five diagnosis and three procedure codes. Different ICD-9 codes are assigned for different types of cardiac catheterization procedures. Hospitals are expected to Code each individual cardiac catheterization procedure performed on the patient in accordance with specific instructions published by the American Hospital Association. ICD-9 code information reported to the HCCCB by existing providers of cardiac cath services in the service district corroborates the findings derived by Petitioners from information obtained through subpoenas to those providers, and verifies there is generally some multiple of ICD-9 code procedures per patient in a single admission. While ICD-9 code information is the most reliable tool available for health care planning purposes, the counting of procedures by those codes is not an appropriate measuring tool or good indication of need for two reasons. First, certain procedures may be a component of each and every catheterization, such as pressure measurements and angiography. The same amount of time and resources per patient are utilized regardless of whether the event is recorded as one "admission" or two "procedures". Secondly, different hospitals do record or code the various procedures differently, thereby skewing the results of any attempt to average procedures district wide in order to develop a ratio of procedures to admissions. In this regard, it is noted that Mease and Morton Plant do not code angiography as a separate procedure, consequently they have a low ratio of procedures to admissions in comparison to Palms. In developing its proposed new rule policy, HRS considered methodical scenarios for converting prpcedures to admissions, including a conversion factor of 1.2 procedures per admission and a conversion factor of 1.9 procedures per admission. Neither of these conversion options are utilized in the proposed new rule. Further, the evidence presented at the final hearing fails to establish that HRS has in place any methodology for the conversion of cardiac cath lab procedures to admissions to cardiac cath programs. Petitioners contend that HRS relied in the past upon local health councils to gather the correct number of cardiac cath lab procedures performed by existing labs in a service district, and that hospitals with cardiac cath labs erroneously reported lab admissions to the District Five Local Health Council rather than the total number of procedures performed in the labs. Petitioners further contend that as a result of unwitting reliance upon the number of cardiac cath lab patient admissions instead of the number of procedures performed on patients admitted to those labs, HRS historically suppressed projections of cardiac cath lab need in the Service District Five when applying the "old" rule. The weight of the evidence presented at the final hearing supports a finding that actual need may be at some minor variance with that projected by HRS' need formula computation under the old rule. The extent that such need exceeds the projected amount, while not totally capable of discernment on the basis of the evidence presented, is probably in the neighborhood of 1.01 procedures per admission. It is found that HRS did not intentionally suppress need projections in the district and that the minor variance shown does not substantially affect numeric need determinations calculated under the old rule. As previously alluded to above, the term "procedure" in the rule methodology previously utilized by HRS historically meant the aggregate of what is performed on one admission to a cardiac cath lab. The old rule was based on federal guidelines providing that procedures were equal to an admission. At the time the old rule was written, the terms "cases", "cardiac catheterization", and "cardiac catherization procedures" were used interchangeably with the advent of DRGs for medicare reimbursement purposes, hospitals responded to local health councils' data collection requests by reporting "Procedures" used for reimbursement purposes. The resultant confusion spawned the motivation for HRS to propose the new rule methodology which uses the term "admission." HRS reviewed the applications at issue here pursuant to the proposed new rule and its "admissions" based numeric need methodology. That review, conducted on the basis of admissions, was consistent with the policy of HRS to interpret the term "procedure" to mean "admission." Further, in view of the equivalency accorded the those terms by HRS, the number of procedures for purposes of numeric need calculation under the "old" rule formula does not require inflation in order to apply the old rule's numeric need formula. HRS has candidly admitted that various providers reported the number of "admissions" rather than "procedures". The policy of HRS, although subject to a minor margin of error with the advent of DRGs, to count admissions as procedures is one that has been consistently and fairly applied without regard to whether the result led to the granting or denial of a particular application. From a health planning perspective, an admission or patient is the appropriate unit of measurement to determine future need for cardiac cath services. The goal of the CON program is to ensure an appropriate allocation of services while controlling capital expenditures. The Petitioners contend that cardiac catheterization admissions are not a good measure of resource consumption and that the type of catheterization, i.e., adult versus pediatric and therapeutic versus diagnostic, should be considered. To an extent, the position is well taken, but in the absence of an agency policy that measures numeric need in that fashion, the alternative proposed by the Petitioners is unpalatable. The Petitioners' overly broad proposal for consideration of "procedure" as a multiple of "admission" for purposes of need formula computation results in a proliferation of cardiac cath labs in derogation of the CON program goal previously mentioned. The use of 300 admissions as a minimum number required for a new lab under the proposed "new" rule is not a recognition by HRS of any applicable conversion factor of procedures to admissions. Instead, the number of 300 admissions is a standard that must be met after all existing providers have their present patient volume protected, as opposed to a simple minimal admission number required to maintain skill proficiency of medical personnel. Under the old rule, a volume of only 600 patients per lab is protected in contrast to the new rule's proposal to protect uncapped patient volume in existing cardiac programs. To that extent, the old rule does not place the same emphasis on utilization of existing labs or programs as does the new rule. HRS' SAAR on the Petitioners' applications confirmed a total of 4,712 admissions to cardiac cath labs in the service district from April, 1987 until March, 1988. If the number of admissions is equated to mean the number of procedures, in accordance with HRS rule policy applied to the formula previously used to determine numeric need, then the result of that computation under the "old" rule is no numeric need for additional cardiac cath labs in the service district. Likewise, computations under the proposed "new" rule need formula utilizing reported admissions during the base period also results in a finding of no numeric need for additional cath labs in the district. Out-migration While it is conceded by the parties that strict application of the numeric need methodology of the proposed "new" rule results in a finding of no need for additional cardiac cath labs, Petitioners contend that HRS is required to factor into that new need methodology the number of residents in the service district who go outside the district to obtain cardiac cath services. While subsection h of the "new" rule requires that HRS consider such data in the determination of need, there is no requirement that the number of such residents be included within the need determination formula. As established at the final hearing, out-migration serves to establish need for a facility, in the absence of numeric need, where it is shown that residents are leaving the service district due to unavailability of the services within the district. While residents are leaving the service district in this instance to obtain cardiac cath services, the evidence fails to establish that this action is due to service unavailability. Quality Of Care The parties stipulated that both applicants partially meet the statutory requirement requiring proof of the ability to render quality care and the previous record of the applicant to render quality of care. HRS contends both applicants failed to a provide a "written protocol" for the transfer of emergency patients to open heart surgery providers in compliance with requirements of the "new" rule. HRS concedes that both applications meet quality of care requirements, including those relating to a "transfer agreement" if reviewed under the "old" rule. HRS has not formally defined the term "written protocol", but no evidence exists that either applicant would fail to provide quality of care with regard to transfer of patients in the event such became necessary. The purpose of a written protocol is to assure HRS that proper quality of care procedures would be used in transferring open heart patients. HRS professes confidence in the ability of the applicants to perform this service and therefore this requirement is considered fulfilled in the event approval of the applications is determined pursuant to provisions of the "new" rule. Availability Of Resources Morton Plant's concerns regarding Mease's ability to render quality of care are restricted to whether Mease has provided for sufficiently trained staff to handle the projected volume of cases in the event that Mease's application is approved. Availability of appropriately trained professionals is also a Morton Plant concern. The projections of Mease for salaries, number of employees, expenses, training or acquisition of employees, and overtime costs are reasonable and meet requirememts relating to availability of resources. Consistency With State And Local Plans The state health plan in effect when these applications were filed contains a goal that an average of 600 cardiac cath procedures per lab be maintained within the district. HRS found this provision of the state health plan to be inapplicable since these applications were not reviewed in conjunction with requirements of the "old" rule. Regardless of this omission, neither application meets this goal in view of the traditional interpretation accorded the term "procedures" by HRS. With regard to the district plan, all counties within Service District Five have existing or approved cardiac catheterization providers. With the exception of the access difficulties noted with regard to Palms, services are well distributed. Neither applicant is a major referral hospital, although both have traditionally served all patients without regard to the ability of the patient to pay. Adequacy And Availability Of Other Services There are other existing providers of diagnostic inpatient cardiac cath services available in service district five, whose capacity is not fully utilized. Mease, whose Dunedin campus is located only three to four miles from Morton Plant, proposes to provide services to the same patient population. As previously noted, the concerns about the adequacy of equipment in one of the Morton Plant cath labs is in the process of being addressed through the installation of new equipment in the fall of 1990. Although there are existing providers available, the instances of access difficulty recited by witnesses for Palms are likely to be compounded as more patients undergo cardiac catheterization at those alternative facilities in the future. The demographics of Palms' elderly and multiple illness-laden inpatient population increase the complications likely to be experienced by those inpatients during transfer for purposes of diagnostic catheterization. Likewise, outpatient cath lab establishment would not be a realistic alternative for these patients, or a cost effective measure. While many inpatients would invariably have to be transferred later for therapeutic cath services, the rigors of such a journey would be avoided initially for all inpatients and a considerable number of inpatients thereafter. Impact On Existing Costs No testimony presented at final hearing supports a finding of an adverse impact on any existing provider in the event that Palms' application is approved. Of the three other full service hospitals in Palms' primary service area, only one has a cardiac cath program. Palms projects savings from the elimination of ambulance transfers and reductions in the length of stay for Palms' inpatients receiving diagnostic cardiac caths at approximately $157,000 in the first year of operation. Cost per cardiac cath patient for this service would be approximately $2,200 on average, an amount comparable to other providers in the Palms area. One thrust of Mease's argument, in terms of impact of its program upon the costs of inpatient cardiac cath, is directed to the losses which Mease experiences through the transfer of inpatients to Morton Plant. While increased utilization of Mease's present outpatient cardiac cath lab by its inpatients would decrease or eliminate the present loss of income experienced by the hospital, the burden of that cost benefit to Mease falls upon Morton Plant. The number of inpatients projected by Mease would be derived primarily from individuals who would otherwise receive cardiac cath services at Morton Plant. Approximately 30 percent of the total procedures performed at Morton Plant would be lost if the Mease application is approved. Such a loss would not be detrimental to the Morton Plant program, other than to require Morton Plant to postpone future contemplated increases in the number of cardiac cath labs in the present program. Approval of the Mease application would increase competition to some degree among other providers of diagnostic cath services to inpatients in Mease's primary service area. As previously noted, the impact of competition would be primarily upon Morton Plant, whose cardiac cath facilities, while nearing capacity limits, are not over utilized at the present time. Mease estimates that an average cath charge to inpatients would be $1,500 if its CON is approved. The loss of revenue to Morton Plant will average $1,606 for each inpatient cath lost to another facility, or $511,000 if Mease's application is approved. This amount closely approximates the positive revenue impact of $563,785 estimated by Mease in the event of CON approval. Financial Feasibility All parties, except HRS, stipulated that Palms' application was financially feasible. HRS' position was that Palms' application met this criterion, provided costs of Palms' cardiac cath lab director did not affect financial feasibility. Palms presented evidence at the final hearing amplifying the information in its application and establishing that the cost of the lab director will not affect financial feasibility of the project. The directorship will be a voluntary, non-paying position rotated among the cardiologists with privileges to perform catheterizations. Palms' proposal is financially feasible. HRS stipulated that Mease's project is financially feasible. Morton Plant disputes the long term financial feasibility of Mease's project. Mease maintains that its provision of inpatient cath service will have no cost because the equipment has already been purchased and is being used to do outpatient caths. However, Mease also has an expense item on its inpatient pro forma for depreciation of that same equipment and maintains that the cost for providing the cath service will decrease as costs will be spread over more patients with the advent of inpatient cath services. The more reasonable assumption is that the cost of the equipment is a cost associated with the present CON application, particularly since Mease admits to the motivation of implementing outpatient service in an attempt to enhance the probability of obtaining an inpatient lab. Notwithstanding this cost discrepancy, Mease's application is financially feasible. Medicaid And Medically Indigent HRS has stipulated that the Petitioners' past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent is not at issue. However, the parties contend that the matter is in issue between them. As a not-for-profit hospital, part of Mease's mission is to provide needed medical care, independently of the patient's ability to pay. Mease would apply this same philosophy to patients needing services in its inpatient cath lab. Mease provides its fair share of medicaid and charity services relative to the community in which it is located. Palms has made a commitment to serve all patients regardless of ability to pay. Palms does not have any policies which would discourage Medicaid patients. Comparative Review There is insufficient numeric need under either the new or old rule formula to approve either of the Petitioners' applications on that basis. However, Palms presented considerable evidence of exceptional and not normal circumstances justifying approval of its application. In particular, the overcrowding at All Children's, inpatient transfer problems, the severity of the scheduling difficulties at All Children's and other access problems provide an adequate basis for approval of the Palms application. Palms generates more inpatients requiring inpatient diagnostic cath services than does Mease. Notably, 4.76 percent of the total service district diagnostic cath inpatients originate from Palms as opposed to 3.37 percent for Mease. The average age of Palms' inpatients is higher than that of Mease's inpatients. Palms' inpatients have a higher comorbidity index than both Mease and the service district as a whole. Palms has had, historically, more inpatients in the 45-64 age cohort and the over age 65 cohort undergo cardiac cath than has Mease. Mease provides more Medicaid care than Palms, but Palms does not provide obstetrics and pediatric services, two areas of care traditionally high in Medicaid utilization. If the comparison is limited to Medicaid utilization for cardiology services, Palms ranks higher than Mease. Capital costs of Mease's construction of an outpatient lab capable of provision of inpatient services is not included in its application, although depreciation and amortization of the lab and equipment is included. Mease's outpatient lab was constructed in an effort to improve its application for a CON to provide inpatient services, therefore exclusion of that cost results in an unfair comparison of capital expenditure between the two applications. Discounting Mease's claim that its provision of inpatient cath service will have no cost because the equipment has already been purchased and is being used to do outpatient caths, the application of Palms is superior to that of Mease.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the application of Palms for an inpatient cardiac catheterization lab or program Certificate of Need, and denying the application of Mease. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Mease's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Adopted in substance. 4. Rejected as to cost, not supported by weight of the evidence. 5.-15. Adopted in substance. 16. Rejected, conclusion of law. 17.-20. Rejected, cumulative. 21.-25. Rejected, unnecessary. 26.-31. Adopted in substance, but qualified in some instances. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, misrepresentative of HRS policy interpretation of "procedures" in the context of rule application. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 37.-38. Adopted in substance. 39. Adopted. 40.-41. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 42.-43. Rejected, unnecessary. 44.-45. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 48.-51. Rejected, cumulative. 52.-58. Adopted by reference. Rejected, relevancy. Rejected as recitation of testimony, alternatively ultimate conclusion not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected, relevancy. 63.-65. Adopted. Rejected, speculative. Adopted by reference. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, cumulative. 70.-72. Adopted in substance. Rejected, cumulative. Adopted in substance. 76. Rejected on basis of creditability. 77.-78. Adopted. 79.-81. Adopted in substance. 82.-84. Rejected, cumulative. 85.-86. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 87.-88. Adopted by reference. 89. Rejected, cumulative and speculative. 90.-91. Adopted in substance. 92. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 93.-94. Adopted in substance. 95.-97. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 98.-99. Adopted by reference. 100. Rejected, unnecessary. 101.-103. Adopted in substance. 104.-110. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 111. Adopted in substance. 112.-114. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 115.-116. Rejected on basis of creditability. 117.-122. Adopted by reference. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Rejected on basis of creditability. 126.-128. Rejected, cumulative. 129. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 130.-131. Adopted in substance. 132.-138. Adopted by reference, although cumulative. 139.-141. Rejected, relevancy. 142. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 143. Rejected, relevancy. 144. Adopted with modifications. 145. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Palms' Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Adopted in substance. 11. Rejected, unnecessary. 12.-25. Adopted in substance. 26. Rejected, unnecessary. 27.-41. Adopted in substance. 42. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. 43.-45. Adopted in substance. 46. Rejected, unnecessary. 47.-57. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 58. Rejected, conjecture unsupported by weight of the evidence. 59.-63. Adopted in substance. 64. Rejected, unnecessary. 65.-71. Adopted in substance. 72.-75. Rejected, unnecessary. 76. Adopted as to first sentence. Rejected as to second sentence as unsupported legal conclusion. 77.-79. Adopted in substance. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted for recitation of factual background in recommended order. However, the term "procedure" refers to ICD-9 procedures and not to "procedures" as that term has been defined by agency policy for need formula calculation. Proposed finding's conclusion of additional lab numeric need is rejected as not supported by weight of the evidence. 82.-88. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 89.-92. Rejected, unnecessary. 93.-94. Rejected, unsupported by weight of the evidence. 95.-101. Rejected, unnecessary. 102. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 103.-105. Rejected as legal argument and conclusions unsupported by weight of the evidence to advance the theory that ICD- 9 procedures should govern over the agency's policy definition of procedures under the old rule, and that such other definition should control the determination of number of admissions used to calculate numeric need under the new rule. Rejected, unnecessary. First sentence adopted in substance, remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as argumentative legal conclusion not supported by weight of the evidence to the extent that subsection h data must be included in numeric need formula calculations. Rejected as to ultimate conclusion of this proposed finding as unsupported by weight of the evidence. 109.-114. Adopted in substance. 115.-117. Adopted by reference. 118.-119. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 120.-125. Adopted in substance. 126. Rejected, unnecessary. 127.-130. Adopted in substance. 131. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 132.-137. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Morton Plant's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Adopted in substance. Adopted in substance with exception of last sentence which is not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected as to ultimate conclusion as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. 9.-11. Adopted in substance. 12.-15. Adopted in substance. 16.-18. Rejected, unnecessary. First sentence reject, unsupported by evidence as to Palms. Adopted by reference as to remainder of this proposed finding. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, except as to last sentence which is adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. 26-28. Adopted in substance. 29. Adopted in substance with exception of next to last sentence of this proposed finding which is rejected as unsupported by weight of the evidence. 30.-34. Adopted in substance. First sentence rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 37.-38. Adopted in substance. 39.-40. Rejected, unnecessary. Ultimate conclusion of this proposed finding regarding accessibility of cardiac cath services to Mease inpatients is adopted in substance. This proposed finding is apparently directed only to the Mease application in view of the usage of the singular in the reference to denial of the "application" and as such the remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance. All aspects of this proposed finding are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Therefore, as a multiple proposed finding not susceptible to division, it is rejected for that reason. Adopted in substance. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 47.-48. Rejected as unnecessary with exception of last sentence of proposed finding number 48 which is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. 49.-50. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 51. Adopted in substance. 52.-56. Rejected, legal argument. 57. Adopted in substance. HRS' proposed findings. Adopted in substance, as to patients requiring angioplasty. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. 7.-10. Adopted in substance. 11. Rejected, unnecessary. 12.-13. Adopted by reference. Rejected as unnecessary. First sentence adopted in substance, remainder rejected as speculative, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Adopted in substance. 19.-21. Adopted in substance. 22.-23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-25. Adopted in substance with exception of last sentence of proposed finding number 25 which is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 26.-27. Rejected, unnecessary. 28. Adopted by reference. 29.-30. Adopted in substance. Adopted in substance. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. 34.-35. Adopted. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 39.-45. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance except as to last sentence which is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted. 49.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Adopted. 55.-56. Rejected, unnecessary. 57.-58. Adopted in substance. 59. Rejected, unnecessary. 60.-61. Adopted in substance. 62. Rejected, unnecessary. 63.-67. Adopted in substance. 68.-72. Rejected, unnecessary. 73.-77. Adopted in substance. 78.-79. Rejected as unnecessary. 80.-81. Rejected as legal conclusions. 82. Rejected as unnecessary. 83.-87. Rejected, legal conclusions and argument. 88.-89. Adopted in substance. 90.-92. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. 96.-98. Adopted by reference. 99. Rejected, unnecessary. 100.-101. Adopted in substance. Rejected, recitation of testimony. Rejected as to Palms, not supported by weight of the evidence. As to Mease, existing inpatient providers provide an alternative. 104.-105. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 106. Rejected as cumulative. 107.-108. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted by reference. Rejected, legal argument. Adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. 113.-114. Adopted in substance with modification. 115. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esq. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 Tallahassee, FL 32301 C. Gary Williams, Esq. Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esq. 227 South Calhoun St. P.O. Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Ken Hoffman, Esq. W. David Watkins, Esq. P.O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esq. Loula Fuller, Esq. P.O. Drawer 190 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioners and intervenors each own and operate hospitals in Broward or Dade Counties. Each facility has applied to the respondent for a Certificate of Need for approval to construct and operate a cardiac catheterization service at their respective bSopitals. Each application was denied on the ground that the challenged Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, did not reveal a need for further cardiac catheterization laboratories in the respective service districts. A cardiac catbeterization laboratory is a specialized x-ray room designed for taking pictures of the heart or doing procedures referrable to the heart. Cardiac catheterization encompasses both diagnostic and, more recently, therapeutic procedures or maneuvers. As a diagnostic procedure, cardiac catheterization is the most reliable test for determining the presence of coronary disease. Within the last 3 to 5 years, cardiac catheterization labs have been used to perform therapeutic procedures, such as the installation of an enzyme to dissolve a clot, the use of PTCA (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) to open up blockages and the placement of permanent and temporary pacemakers. With wider acceptance of bypass surgery and new advances in anpioplasty, the use of cardiac catheterization has increased in recent years. At this point in time, the effect of other emerging technologies, such as NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance), upon the use of the cardiac catheterization technique cannot be determined. Prior to the adoption of the current challenged rule, HRS's predecessor rule reguired denial of an application for a Certificate of Need for a proposed new cardiac catheterization laboratory unless all existing labs in the service area were performing more than 500 catheterizations per year. The prior rule also reguired the existence of or approval for an open heart surgery service at the applicant's facility. In August or September of 1982, HRS started a review of this rule which ultimately led to the adoption of the oresent challenged rule. As pertinent to the issues raised in this proceeding, the challenged Rule 10-5.11(15) contains a formula methodology for determining the need for new cardiac catheterization laboratories in a service area. The formula requires the utilization of a base year use rate (the number of procedures per hundred thousand population in the service area) to be multiplied by the projected population in the service area in the year in which the proposed lab would initiate service, said year not to be more than two vears into the future. Such multiplication results in the number of catheterization procedures projected to be delivered at the time of initiation of the proposed new service. The rule further provides that no additional cardiac catheterization laboratories may be established in a service area unless the average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved labs performing adult procedures in the service area is greater than 600. The challenged rule specifically states that HRS will consider applications in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria, and will not normally approve new labs unless additional need is indicated by the above formula and unless the 600 average procedures per lab reguirement is met. Rule 10-5.11(15)(f). The current rule deletes the requirement for open heart surgical potential at the applicant's facility. During the rule-making process which spanned from July or August of 1982 through January, 1983, the HRS Office of Health Planning and Development held informal meetings with representatives of the medical community and health planners, and considered the criteria and standards included in the national guidelines, in other states and in various health systems plans. Medical journals were consulted and numerous written comments were received from interested perSons. Several variations of the rule evolved, and a public hearing was held on December 10, 1982. Based on the manv public comments received, changes in the rule were made. These changes were published, the final rule was filed with the Secretary of State on January 24, 1983 and Rule 10-5.11(15) became effective on February 14, 1983. Throughout the rule-making process, HRS weighed and considered different methodologies for predicting the future need for cardiac catheterization services. The use of an historical base year as opposed to the most current or recent year use rate was considered and was the subject of considerable public comment. It was finally determined that a 1981 base year use rate figure would be adopted, and a one time data collection effort was under taken by HRS for this purpose. This effort was not completed until after the challenged rule was adopted. Although recognizing that the use of a current or most recent year use rate would be preferable to and more accurate than the use of a static use rate, HRS was hampered by the fact that it no longer had the data gathering mechanism or manpower to obtain ongoing current information regarding cardiac catheterization utilization. Therefore, 1991 is the latest and most current year for which a complete data base of utilization is available. There is some support for the proposition that the continued increase in the utilization of cardiac catheterization procedures may tend to level off or even decrease as a result of emerging technologies and a decline in the rate of coronary disease. Balanced against this are the factors of increasing population, increased aging of the population and a wider acceptance of catheterization procedures, both diagnostic and therapeutic, on the part of physicians and patients. It is therefore difficult to predict with any degree of certainty whether utilization in the future will increase or decrease. It was the intent of HRS to design a need determination methodology which would pace the approval of new cardiac catheterization labs while observing what is occurring in that area of medicine. The actual experience in Broward and Dade Counties has been a steady increase in the use rate of catheterization procedures performed from 1977 through 1983. The rate of increase for the United States as a whole, while present in each year between 1977 and 1981, with the exception of 1978, has not been as great as that experienced in Broward County. The application of the rule's need determination formula to Broward County, while permitting one additional lab, appears to under-estimate the need for cardiac catheterization services in that area. By employing the 1981 use rate, the formula projects fewer procedures for Broward County in 1984 than actually occurred in the year 1982. The estimated number of procedures for 1983, based upon the actual procedures performed during the first eight or nine months of 1983, exceeds the 1982 number by almost 1,000. Broward County's rate of increase in the utilization of cardiac catheterization procedures is much greater than the rate of increase either for the United States or for the State of Florida. This may be at least partially explained by the fact that the neighboring Palm Beach area has only one cardiac catheterization lab and there is a need in that area, even under the rule's methodology, for as many as five labs. There was no evidence presented that the existing labs in Broward County are overcrowded or unavailable to area residents. A cardiac catheterization procedure takes, on the average, one to one- and-a-half hours. Therefore, the actual capacity of any particular laboratory is well in excess of 1,000 procedures per year. In 1981, the statewide average for annual number of procedures performed per lab was 581. For quality of care reasons, a minimum of 300 procedures per year per lab is necessary. Studies regarding the cost effectiveness of labs at different levels of usage indicate that the main economies of scale accrue up to the number 400 and additional, less pronounced economies of scale continue to accrue to as high as about 700. Any consideration of costs must also include the costs of trans-porting a patient from a facility without a lab to an existing lab and the costs of increased lengths of hospital stay if delays occur because a lab is not available. As long as the cost of instituting a new lab does not exceed the capital expenditure threshold of Section 381.494(1)(c) Florida Statutes, (presently $600,000.00), an existing facility which presently offers cardiac catheterization capabilities could open a second laboratory without going through the Certificate of Need process and thus be exempt from the challenged rule and its method for determining need. This, of course, would allow an existing facility to have an advantage over new competitors who seek to enter the market to fill a demonstrated need. As a practical matter, such a situation would only occur when an existing facility already has a special procedures room and is willing to forfeit that room for the purpose of performing cardiac catheterization. Such a "loophole" is not a result of the challenged rule. The Certificate of Need thresholds are set by statute and the rule comes into effect only when a Certificate of Need is required. The Economic Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the challenged rule, (as well as for Rule 10-5.11(16) pertaining to open heart surgery programs) does not attempt or purport to analyze the overall financial impact upon providers, prospective providers or consumers of regulating the number of cardiac catheterization labs in a service area. Instead, it attempts to give an estimate of the economic impact which the amended rule will have in comparison to the prior rule on the subject. Given the fact that the prior rule reguired a facility to have existing or approved open heart surgical capabilities and required every existing lab in the service area to perform at least 500 procedures per year before a new lab could be approved, it can be concluded that the new rule actually liberalizes the need demonstration requirements for a Certificate of Need. The EIS concludes that, other than the printing and distribution costs of the rule to the agency, no economic impact is anticipated as a result of this amendment. The EIS states that "Though the full extent of the economic impact is indeterminable, the rule is expected to contain health care costs by assuring optimal utilization of existing cardiac catheterization . . ., and by avoiding large capital outlay expendi- tures for unnecessary, duplicative services." The effect on competition and the open market is estimated as follows: "Consistent with the purpose of the Certificate of Need law, the proposed rules will restrain the development of costly excess cardiac catbeterization and open heart surgery capacity. The proposed rules permit the development of competitive new services among area cardiac catbeterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs when need for additional capacity is indicated by the need formula and the level of utilization of existing capacity." Absent from the EIS is a detailed statement of the data and method used in making the estimates of costs and benefits to persons directly affected and the estimate of impact on competition and the open market. However, the record of the rule-making proceeding clearly reveals that cost and benefit considerations were reviewed by those responsible for promulgating the challenged rule. It is clear from the testimony adduced in this hearing, as well as the documents received into evidence pertaining to the public comments and letters received by HRS in the rule-promulgation process, that factors involving cost efficiency, increased patient costs, optimal and actual utilization, lab capacity and guality of care were considered by HRS. Such considerations led to numerous changes in the language utilized in the rule. While the EIS perhaps could have been more explicit in specifying the possible economic impacts of these considerations, the fact that actual dollar amounts are not assigned to these considerations does not render the EIS inadeguate. The challengers to the rule offered no more specifics than that contained in the EIS as to the economic impact resulting from the rule. The impacts enumerated by the economic expert presented by the challengers in this proceeding result more from the fact of regulation itself than from the operation of the challenged rule.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jayaprakash Kamath, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having license ME 0036704. He is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology. He has had no prior complaints of any kind against him since he began practicing medicine in Florida in 1980, and he has a reputation for being a competent and caring physician. On the morning of August 1, 1988, while making rounds at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Florida, the Respondent was paged by one of his partners, Belur Sreenath, M.D. The Respondent returned the call and was asked to see a patient whom Sreenath had just accepted and admitted on a 23-hour basis at Morton Plant. Sreenath reported that the patient was a referral from the Morton Plant emergency room. The patient's regular physician was on vacation, and the regular physician's on-call cover had recommended to the emergency room physician that the patient be referred to the Respondent and Sreenath to treat the patient for diagnosed fecal impaction. It was reported to the Respondent, through Sreenath, that the patient had come into the emergency room at about five in the morning complaining of abdominal pain and constipation. The emergency room physician, Jerry Julius Chase, M.D., had three X-rays done and had done his own "wet reads" of the X-rays before sending them to the radiology department for a definitive interpretation. According to Chase, the X-rays showed "much fecal matter, no obstruction." Chase did not mention any other significant findings. Chase's preliminary diagnosis was "fecal impaction." Sreenath also reported that he (Sreenath) had ordered enemas for the patient. Soon after the Respondent received the call from his partner, the Respondent called Chase, who was still in the emergency room and still had the X-rays. Chase confirmed what Sreenath had told the Respondent, again not mentioning any other significant findings. After talking to Chase, the Respondent visited the patient in his hospital room. By this time it was about 10:00 a.m. The Respondent took a history from the patient, examined the patient, and read the patient's chart. The chart included the results of lab work and the "ER sheet," which included the emergency room physician's diagnosis of abdominal pain and impaction and the results of his "wet-read" of the X-rays, but it did not yet include a report from the radiology department or the X-rays themselves. The Respondent did not contact the radiology department for a definitive interpretation of the X-rays or obtain the X-rays for his own review. By the time the Respondent saw the patient, the patient already had one enema and seemed to be responding to the treatment. Based on the information he had, the Respondent made a diagnosis of fecal impaction, confirmed his partner's orders for enemas for the patient, and added a stool softener. The nursing staff was ordered to monitor the patient's progress. The patient continued to respond satisfactorily to treatment during the day. Between ten and eleven in the evening of August 1, 1988, the patient complained of some abdominal pain or cramping (symptoms that are consistent with a diagnosis of fecal impaction and enema treatments) and the nurses on duty contacted the Respondent's partner, who was on call. Sreenath ordered a combination of demerol and vistaril as an analgesic. One small dose was enough to relieve the patient's pain, and the patient slept through most of the night. He ate 80% of his breakfast the next morning and was not complaining of pain or asking to see a doctor. At approximately 9:15 a.m. on August 2, 1988, a nurse telephoned the Respondent for a decision whether the patient was being discharged or was being admitted as an inpatient. The Respondent still had not seen the patient's X- rays, seen or had reported to him the radiology report on them, or spoken to the radiologist. On questioning, the nurse reported the patient's status to the Respondent. The nurse's report satisfied the Respondent that the patient was responding to the treatment for fecal impaction and could be discharged. The nurse was given orders to have arrangements made for the patient to see his regular physician within a week and to instruct the patient on symptoms to report if they occurred between discharge and seeing his regular physician. In accordance with the Respondent's telephone instructions, the patient was discharged at approximately 9:30 a.m. on August 2, 1988. Although there were no clinical signs or symptoms of it during the patient's stay at Morton Plant, the patient had a large aortic aneurysm, approximately eight centimeters in diameter, in his abdomen just below the renal arteries. The aneurysm was readily apparent on the X-rays, yet Chase did not report it to either the Respondent or to his partner, Sreenath. The radiologist either did not contact Dr. Chase to point out to him that the report of Chases's "wet read" of the X-rays omitted the aneurysm or, if he did, Chase did not relay this information to the Respondent or his partner. The radiologist's written report, stating that the X-rays revealed the large aneurysm, was sent to Chase, not to the Respondent, and Chase did not relay the information in it to the Respondent or his partner. If the Respondent had known about the aneurysm, he would have considered the aneurysm to be the patient's most serious medical concern. He might not have accepted the patient or, if he did, he probably would have brought a vascular surgeon into the case and had the vascular surgeon, or perhaps a cardiologist, closely monitor the patient for possible leaking or dissecting or rupture of the aneurysm. The Respondent also would have had to give consideration to whether the aneurysm was a cause of the patient's abdominal pain. In addition to treating the aneurysm as the patient's most serious medical concern, giving consideration to whether the aneurysm was a cause of the patient's abdominal pain, the Respondent would have had to give consideration to altering his diagnosis for the patient had he reviewed the X-rays or the radiologist report, or had spoken with the radiologist. In addition to showing the existence of the aneurysm, the X-rays indicated that the patient technically may not have been impacted. (The gas pattern was non-specific.) With respect to this patient, the Respondent practiced medicine below that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances (below the standard of care) in that he did not either personally review the X-rays on the patient, read or have reported to him the contents of the radiologist's report, or talk to the radiologist. Instead, he relied totally on the emergency room physician's "wet read." As a result, the Respondent's diagnosis of "fecal impaction" may not have been correct, and he did not give proper consideration to the aneurysm. However, except for the failure regarding the X-rays, the DPR otherwise did not prove that it was below the standard of care for the Respondent, who was treating the patient for fecal impaction, to discharge the patient without seeing him on the morning of August 2, 1988, based on the nurse's report to the Respondent. Although it was below the standard of care for the Respondent not to either read the X-rays himself or obtain the radiologist's definitive interpretation, it was reasonable for the Respondent to expect that the emergency room physician would have told him, and noted in the "ER sheet," that the patient he was being referred had an aneurysm of the kind and size of the one the patient had in this case. Even if the emergency doctor had not initially communicated to the Respondent the existence of the aneurysm, either directly or through the "ER sheet," it was reasonable for the Respondent to expect that, in the normal course, the radiologist reviewing the X-rays would have noted that, according to the "ER sheet," the ER doctor "missed" the aneurysm and would have contacted the ER physician to bring this to his attention, and that the ER doctor then would have contacted the Respondent to advise him of the omission. The patient did not experience abdominal pain after his discharge from Morton Plant, but he began to experience back and groin pain. The aneurysm was becoming symptomatic. The patient's symptoms markedly worsened in the early morning hours of August 4, 1988. The patient's wife had him taken to the emergency room at HCA New Port Richey Hospital at approximately half past midnight. The patient was confused, and was complaining of pain in the back and groin area. His blood sugars were three times normal. He was diagnosed preliminarily in the emergency room as having out-of-control diabetes and confusion and as being near sycope. No X-rays were taken in the emergency room at New Port Richey Hospital, and no information was obtained from Morton Plant Hospital. Because the patient and his wife did not know about the aneurysm, they were unable to report it when the emergency room physician took the patient's history. The patient was admitted to New Port Richey Hospital at approximately 2:30 a.m. on August 4, 1988. However, the admitting physician did not see the patient or order diagnostic medical imaging at that time. The admitting physician saw the patient at approximately 9:00 a.m., and ordered X-rays and a CAT scan. Before the X-rays or CT scan were taken, at approximately ten o'clock, the patient suffered an acute hypotensive event while in his hospital room. An emergency abdominal sonogram was ordered, and it was determined that the patient was suffering from the rupture of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (the same one that was evident on the X-rays taken at Morton Plant). Surgery was attempted to resect the ruptured aneurysm. The patient was a poor candidate for surgery of that kind due to his age and other health factors. The patient died on August 6, 1988. If the patient knew of the aneurysm, it is likely that his treatment on August 4, 1988, would have been far different. First, when the aneurysm became symptomatic, they probably would have contacted the vascular surgeon, who would have been on the case already, either immediately or on arrival at the emergency room. The aneurysm would have been closely monitored from the time of arrival at the hospital, and the vascular surgeon would have been prepared for surgery when indicated. 2/ At the very least, the patient and his wife probably would have reported the aneurysm during the taking of a history in the emergency room at HCA New Port Richey Hospital, and the emergency room surgeon could have immediately taken appropriate steps, such as contacting a vascular surgeon and immediately ordering appropriate diagnostic medical imaging. 3/ The Respondent did not dictate admission notes for the patient until August 17, 1988. The Respondent did not dictate discharge notes. The DPR did not prove that it was below the standard of care for the Respondent to delay the dictation of admission notes or for him not to prepare a discharge summary for a patient in the hospital on a 23-hour basis. The DPR also did not prove that the Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Jayaprakash Kamath, M.D., guilty of one count of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), but dismissing the other count of the Administrative Complaint; reprimanding him; and (3) fining him $2,000. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of July, 1992.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be awarded a certificate of need authorizing the establishment of cardiac catheterization laboratory services at its facility in Port Charlotte, Florida. As a result of stipulations of the parties presented at hearing, matters for consideration were limited to whether Petitioner meets the criteria of availability of funds for capital expenditures for the project in accordance with Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes; and whether Petitioner has shown the existence of need for additional services by any existing medically underserved groups in the service area.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that Petitioner does not meet the criteria of Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, because there is no numeric need for the program established by any agency rule formula and that no emergency or other not normal circumstances exist, including problems of geographic, financial or programmatic access, justifying the program in the absence of such enumerated need. Petitioner's agreement to this stipulation was conditioned upon an assumption that previous Certificates of Need, formerly granted by final orders of Respondent to other entities in previous batching cycles and now the subject of legal appeals by Petitioner in the appellate court, will eventually be confirmed by that court to have been properly issued. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner, as the result of nonexistence of numeric or nonnumeric need, has not met criteria regarding its ability to provide quality care, a requirement of subparagraph (c) of Section 381.705(1), Florida Statutes; has not met criteria regarding availability and adequacy of other health care facilities in the applicant's service district, a review component set forth in Section 381.705(1)(d), Florida Statutes; has not met criteria regarding immediate and long term financial feasibility of Petitioner's proposal, a requirement of Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes; has not met criteria regarding the impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing such health services, a requirement of Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes; and has not met criteria, as required by Section 381.705(2)(a)-(d), Florida Statutes, regarding alternative services, efficiency of existing services, alternatives to new construction or the likelihood of patients obtaining the proposed service in the absence of Petitioner's proposal. The parties have stipulated that review requirements of subparagraphs (e), (f), (g), (j), and (k) of Section 381.705(1), Florida Statutes, are found not to be applicable to this proceeding. Those subparagraphs relate, respectively, to economics of shared services, need for special services, need for research and educational facilities, special needs of health maintenance organizations and needs of entities serving residents outside the service area. The parties have stipulated that the criteria ofSection 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, has not been met because they were not addressed or challenged by Petitioner. However, Petitioner does contest the accessibility by medically underserved groups of existing and approved providers in the service district. With the exception of the availability of funds for capital and operating expenditures related to the project in Petitioner's application and the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district, further stipulation between the parties also establishes that the review criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes, does not apply to this proceeding. Portions of Rule 10-5.011(b), Florida Administrative Code, relating to accessibility of services to residents of the service district are also excepted from consideration in this proceeding by the parties' stipulation. By stipulation of the parties, it is established that the review requirement of Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes, relating to the probable impact of the proposed project on the cost of providing services proposed by Petitioner, is met. The parties' stipulation further establishes that requirements of Section 381.705(1)(m) and Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes, have been met. These statutory subparagraphs relate, respectively, to methods and costs of proposed construction, and Petitioner's past and proposed provision of health care services to medicaid and medically indigent patients. Petitioner is a separate, albeit subsidiary,corporation from its parent, Bon Secours Health Systems, Inc., (Bon Secours) a "not for profit" corporation based in Marriottsville, Maryland. Approximately 80 percent of the total project cost of $1,450,000 cost is expected to come from the parent organization and not Petitioner's corporation. The project has been approved by Petitioner's corporation and management approval has been granted by Bon Secours, subject only to final board approval and reevaluation by the parent corporation on an annual basis until the actual capital expenditure is incurred. Petitioner's parent corporation uses either a line of credit or goes to the tax exempt bond market to meet capital expenditure needs. The bond market is utilized when capital needs exceed $15 million for the year. Whether the funding source for Petitioner's project would come from a line of credit or bond financing would not be known until the actual year in which the expenditure is incurred. Bon Secours includes Petitioner in its obligated group which consists of a system-wide master trust indenture established in 1985. The group consists of eight hospitals and three long term care facilities. Weaker entities in the group have the benefit of the credit strength of the group's entire system. In this regard, Bon Secours enjoys a Standard & Poors and Moodys' bond rating of A+ and A-1, respectively. The corporation is a good credit risk with a strong financial position and good earnings record. Over the next five years, Bon Secours has the ability to raise in excess of $100,000,000 in the bond market for funding purposes, inclusive of the project which is the subject of theseproceedings. Although final approval of Petitioner's project by Bon Secours' board of directors is expected shortly, that approval had not occurred at the time of final hearing. As a result, the proof fails to establish that Bon Secours is committed to provide financing for Petitioner's project. Petitioner presented expert testimony regarding accessibility by medically underserved groups to Petitioner's and other cardiac catheterization programs. Petitioner's expert placed the size of the medically indigent population, a subcategory of the medically underserved group, at six to seven percent of the total population of the service area. Due to the lack of specificity of the methodology used in arriving at the cited percentage figure, no credibility can be ascribed to that population percentage. However, both Respondent and Petitioner concede the existence of this group in the district service area sought to be served by Petitioner's project. Petitioner has not established whether the medically indigent population is denied access to cardiac catheterization programs within the district service area. While Petitioner's hospital is a medicaid provider with a proactive policy of aiding the medically indigent, the availability of cardiac catheterization services exist for this group at Intervenor's medical center facilities, located only five miles from Petitioner's hospital. Intervenor is also a medicaid provider. The proof fails to establish that medicaid patients or medically indigentpatients are presently denied or turned away from Intervenor's facility. Further, the duplication of such services at Petitioner's hospital could effectively reduce the number of cardiac catheterization procedures required for the medical staff of Intervenor's laboratory to maintain proficiency. In point of fact, there is unused cardiac catheterization capacity at Intervenor's facility. As established by Intervenor's exhibit number one, there were 562 cardiac catheterization procedures performed at Intervenor's facility in 1988. The State Health Plan recites a minimum goal of 600 such procedures a year as a proficiency measurement; the Local Health Plan maintains that a minimum of 300 procedures should be performed to insure proficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for approval of a cardiac catheterization Certificate of Need. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Adopted in substance, except that part (l) of proposed finding 3 was met by Petitioner. 4.-5. Addressed in part. To the extent that the last sentence of proposed finding 5 suggests the establishment of final approval by the parent corporation, it is rejected. 6. Accepted with the exception of approval by the parent corporation. The record supports a finding of approval by management of that corporation, but not the board of directors. 7.-8. Adopted in substance. Adopted in part, remainder rejected due to witness's inability to support her calculations as to percentages of the population within the service district classified as medically indigent. Addressed in part, remainder unnecessary to conclusion. Addressed in part, remainder rejected on basis of relevancy. Addressed. Rejected on basis of relevancy. Addressed in part, remainder rejected as argumentative and speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Rejected. Treated in preliminary discussion. 3.-21. Adopted in substance. 22.-23. Adopted by reference. 24.-25. Addressed in substance. 26.-30. Adopted by reference. 31.-33. Adopted by reference. Intervenor's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Adopted in substance. 4. Rejected as unnecessary. 5.-9. Adopted in substance. 10. Adopted by reference. 11.-12. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Buchanan, Esq. Suite 900, Sun Bank Building 777 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esq. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 Tallahassee, FL 32301 E. G. Boone, Esq. 1001 Avenida del Circo Venice, FL 34284 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
