The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether proposed amendments to Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), and (p) F.A.C. relating to certificates of need for hospital inpatient general psychiatric services, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, as defined in Section 120.52(8), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Metamorphosis of the Rules Prior to 1983, hospitals were not separately licensed, and certificates of need (CON) were not required for the designation of beds for psychiatric and substance abuse services. In 1983, statutory amendments to Chapter 381, F.S. addressed psychiatric beds as reviewable projects in the CON program. In 1983, HRS adopted rules establishing four new categories of beds, now found in Rules 10-5.011(1)(o), (p), and (q), F.A.C.: Short-term psychiatric, long-term psychiatric, and short and long-term substance abuse. At the time that the categories were created, HRS conducted an inventory of the hospitals, asking how many beds were designated in each category. Based on the responses, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, future projections of need were made and applications were considered for CONs. Another category of psychiatric beds was not included in the 1983 rules. Intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents were created by statute in 1982, and are defined in Section 395.002(8), F.S. as: a specialty hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals which provides 24-hour care and which has the primary functions of diagnosis and treatment of patients under the age of IS having psychiatric disorders in order to restore such patients to an optimal level of functioning. These facilities, called IRTFs, may become licensed as hospitals pursuant to Section 395.003(2)(f), F.S., but as hospitals they must obtain CON approval pursuant to Sections 381.702(7) and (12), F.S. and Section 381.706(1) (b), F.S. IRTFs have no statutory or regulatory restrictions on length of stay and were approved by HRS at one time under an unwritten policy that there be one such facility available in each HRS planning district, without regard to the availability of other long or short term psychiatric programs. In 1985, HRS proposed a rule amendment which would have eliminated the short and long term distinction, as well as the distinction between psychiatric services and substance abuse services. Six months later, the proposed rule amendment was withdrawn. It was highly controversial; several challenges were filed; objections were made by various local health councils; and a new administrator took over. The agency decided to rework its proposed change~;. The agency next began the process of revision in 1987, and in 1988 convened a workshop group to review an issue paper prepared by agency staff. Another work group met in 1989 to consider the consolidation of psychiatric and substance abuse rules. HRS staff reviewed literature on the subjects of substance abuse and psychiatric services, including literature relating to access by indigent patients and the provision of services to children and adolescents. Staff prepared rule drafts which were circulated in- house, including the alcohol, drug abuse and mental health program office; and to such outside groups as the Association of Voluntary Hospitals of Florida, the Florida Hospital Association and the League of Hospitals. The proposed rule amendments which are the subject of this proceeding were filed on January 19, 1990 (substance abuse), and on January 26, 1990 (inpatient psychiatric services) in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Parties HRS administers the CON program pursuant to Section 381.701, et seq., F.S. (1989). The CON program regulates entry into the Florida health care market by providers through review and approval of certain capital expenditures, services and beds. The petitioner, Florida League of Hospitals, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation which is organized and maintained for the benefit of investor-owned hospitals which comprise its membership. The remaining petitioners and intervenors are current providers of hospital inpatient psychiatric services, long and short term, and of inpatient substance abuse services, long and short term. The petitioners and intervenors are all substantially affected by the proposed rules and have stipulated to the standing of all parties in this proceeding. Abolishing Distinctions Between Long-Term & Short-Term Psychiatric Beds "Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services" is defined in existing rule 10-5.011(1)(o)1, FAC, as follows: Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services means a category of services which provides a 24-hour a day therapeutic milieu for persons suffering from mental health problems which are so severe and acute that they need intensive, full-time care. Acute psychiatric inpatient care is defined as a service not exceeding three months and averaging length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. "Long term psychiatric services" is defined in existing rule 10- 5.011(1)(p)1., FAC as a category of services which provides hospital based inpatient services averaging a length of stay of 90 days. Neither rule addresses services to adults with an average length of stay (ALOS) of 30-90 days, or services to children and adolescents with a 60-90 day ALOS. Because of this, and the "averaging" process, long term hospitals legitimately serve "short term" patients and short term hospitals may serve "long term" patients. One party has calculated than a long term facility could legally provide short term services for 80% of its patients, and long term services for only 20% of its patients and still have an ALOS of 90 days. Under the existing rules a facility must file a CON application to convert from long term to short term beds, or vice versa, and is subject to sanctions for failure to comply with the designation on its CON. The proposed changes would repeal rule 10-5.011(1) (p), FAC regarding long term services, and would amend rule 10- 5.011(1) (o), FAC to delete the definition of short term services, thereby permitting facilities to serve patients without regard to length of stay. The proposed changes are supported by several factors upon which a reasonable person could rely. Substantial changes have occurred in the last decade in clinical practices and in third party reimbursement to reduce the ALOS for hospital inpatient psychiatric care. Prior to the 1960s, there was no distinction between long and short term care, as all hospital based care was long term with an emphasis on psychoanalytic therapy. Beginning in the 1960s, the concept of community mental health programs evolved with an emphasis on deinstitutionalization of patients in large public "asylums" and with a goal of treatment in the least restrictive environment. In more recent years the trend has spread to the private sector. Improvements in the availability and use of psychiatric drugs, the use of outpatient care or partial hospitalization, and improved follow up care have led to a dramatic decrease in ALOS. Long term care is costly, and whether third party payors have been a driving force, or are merely responding to the trends described above, long term inpatient reimbursement is virtually nonexistent. During the 19805, most insurance companies imposed a 30-day limit on psychiatric inpatient care or imposed monetary limits which would have effectively paid for less than a 90-day term. CHAMPUS, the program providing insurance to military dependents, was providing long term coverage in 1982, but by 1986 its coverage was rarely available for more than 30-60 days, and today, under CHAMPUS' case management system, 30 days is a "luxurious amount". Other large third-party payors such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield have similar limits or aggressively use case management (the close scrutiny of need on a case by case basis) to limit reimbursement for inpatient care. Of the two or three long term facilities in existence at the time that HRS' rules were originally adopted, only one, Anclote Manor still reported an ALOS of over 90 days by 1989, dropping from an ALOS of 477.9 days in 1986 to 145.4 days in 1989. At the same time its occupancy rate dropped below 50%. There is an interesting dialogue among experts as to whether there still exists a clinical distinction between long term and short term inpatient psychiatric care. Studies at the Florida Mental Health Institute found no difference in rate of rehospitalization over a 12 month period between patients who were in a nine week program and patients from Florida State Hospital with a 500 day length of stay. Some mental health practitioners are looking now at treating the chronic psychiatric patient with repeated short term hospital stays and less intensive care between episodes, rather than a single long term inpatient stay. Other practitioners maintain that a long term psychiatric problem is behavioral in nature and requires a total life readjustment and longer length of stay. Whichever practice may be preferable, the facts remain that fewer and fewer mental patients are being treated with long term hospitalization. The proposed rules would not foreclose any facility from providing long term care, if it finds the need. To the extent that a clinical distinction exists between short and long term care, the existing rules do not address that distinction, except from a wholly arbitrary length of stay perspective. The existing rules no longer serve valid health care objectives. Existing providers with short term CONs are concerned that the allowing long term facilities to convert will further glut an underutilized market and will result in an increase in vacant beds and a rise in the cost of health services, contrary to the intent of the CON program. Intensive residential treatment facilities (IRTFs), which will be folded into the need methodology for children and adolescent beds, have no current restrictions on length of stay and may already compete with impunity with the short term providers. Moreover, long term facilities are also providing substantial short term care as a result of the trends discussed above. HRS has not consistently enforced the length of stay restrictions of long term providers' CONs. Whether those CONs were improvidently granted is beside the point. The capital costs have already been incurred; the beds are available; and the beds are being used, in part, for short term services. Abolishing the distinction is a rational approach to current conditions. And in determining that all existing providers would be placed in the same position regarding length of stay, HRS avoids the regulatory nightmare of trying to enforce limitations on existing providers and approving new beds without limitations. Creating a Distinction Between Adult and Children/Adolescent Beds Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)3.c. creates a CON distinction between general psychiatric services for adults, and those services for children and adolescents. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., as proposed, would create separate need criteria for hospital inpatient general psychiatric services for adults and for children/adolescents. Adolescents are defined in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o)2.a., as persons age 14 through 17 years. Persons over 17 years are adults, and under 14 years are children. There are valid clinical reasons to distinguish between programs fob the separate age groups. Although there is some overlap, differing therapies are appropriate with different ages. The types of services offered to adults are not the same as those which are offered to children. Children, for example, often receive academic educational services while being hospitalized. Adults receive career or vocational counseling and marriage counseling. The required separation by age categories would remove some flexibility from providers. However, this is offset by the Department's valid need to track for planning purposes inpatient services to children and adolescents separately from those provided to adults. Based on anecdotal evidence, HRS' Office of Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office is concerned about the possible overutilization of hospital inpatient services for children and adolescents and the potential that when insurance reimbursement expires they are discharged without clinical bases. Taking Inventory Under the proposed rule, in order to separately regulate adult and children/adolescent beds, HRS will fix an inventory of uses as of the time that the rule takes effect. For facilities with CONs which already allocate beds between the two groups, the proposed rule will have no effect. For facilities without a designation, as long as adults and children/adolescents are kept in separate programs, the allocation can now be mixed and changed at will. The rule amendment will freeze that use in place. HRS has conducted a preliminary survey to determine the existing uses of psychiatric, substance abuse and residential treatment program beds. The survey of approximately 120 facilities is complete, but is not intended to limit those facilities unless their CON already provides a limit. A final inventory will be taken after the proposed rules become effective. The inventory will be published, and providers will be given an opportunity to contest its findings. The ultimate outcome will be amended CONs and licenses which reflect each facility's mix of adult and children/adolescent beds. The process is a fair and reasonable means of commencing separate regulation of services to these age groups. The Definitions Proposed rules 10-5.011(1)(o)2.1., 2.p., and 2.t.) define "hospital inpatient general psychiatric services", "psychiatric disorder" and "substance abuse", respectively. Each of these provisions defines the terms by reference to classifications contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases (DSM-III-R Manual) and equivalent classifications contained- in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 Codes). The rule as originally proposed included the phrase "or its subsequent revisions", after incorporating the manuals by reference. In testimony, and in the parties second agreement (Hearing Office exhibit 3) the phrase is deleted. However, it still appears in proposed rule 10-5.011(1) (o)2.1., perhaps inadvertently. The DSM-III-R is a generally recognized manual for the classification of mental disorders and is widely used by clinicians and medical records professionals to categorize the conditions of patients. The ICD-9 codes are broader than just mental disorders, but they have a section on mental disorders with numbers that are identical to those in the DSM-III-R. Although the manuals are complex and subject to interpretation, clinicians are accustomed to their use and they provide a reasonable guide as to the services which may be provided in an inpatient substance abuse program, as distinguished from an inpatient psychiatric program. Advertising Limited Proposed rule 10-5.011(1)(o)3.d. (as amended in the parties second agreement, Hearing Officer exhibit #3), provides: D. Advertising of services. The number of beds for adult or for children and adolescent hospital inpatient general psychiatric services shall be indicated on the face of the hospital's license. Beds in intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents which are licensed as specialty hospital beds will be indicated as intensive residential treatment program beds on the face of the hospital's license. Only hospitals with separately-licensed hospital inpatient general psychiatric services, including facilities with intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents which are licensed as specialty hospitals, can advertise to the public the availability of hospital inpatient general psychiatric services. A hospital with separately licensed hospital inpatient general psychiatric services that does not have a certificate of need for hospital inpatient substance abuse services may advertise that they [sic] provide services for patients with a principal psychiatric diagnosis excluding substance abuse and a secondary substance abuse disorder. The Department does not currently have CON, licensure, or other rules which limit the ability of a health care provider to advertise its services, and has never used advertising as a factor in conducting CON review for any proposed services. HRS included provisions regarding advertising in its proposed rules because it had evidence that existing facilities have used misleading advertisements. The evidence came from other providers, rather than consumers. However, it is the consumer whom the agency feels may be confused by advertising which implies that services are available when such services cannot be legally provided under the facility's license. The advertising provision is prospective in nature, seeking to prevent licensed providers from advertising services for which they are not licensed. The provisions do not relate to CON review, and the staff is unclear as to how the rule would be implemented. Licensing and CON review are two separate functions within the agency. Although the term is not defined in the proposed rule, advertising broadly includes word of mouth referrals and public presentations by professionals in the community, as well as traditional media and written advertisements. Properly utilized, advertising helps consumers exercise choice and gain access to needed services. Improper advertising is subject to the regulation of federal and state agencies other than the department. New Need Methodology, with Preferences Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., deletes the existing population ratio methodology and creates a need formula based upon use rate, for adult and children/adolescent inpatient psychiatric services. Certain preferences are also described. 34. Rule 10-5.011(1) (o)4.e.(III) provides: In order to insure access to hospital inpatient general psychiatric services for Medicaid-eligible and charity care adults, forty percent of the gross bed need allocated to each district for hospital inpatient general psychiatric services for adults should be allocated to general hospitals. The same provision for children and adolescent services is found in rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.h.(III). Medicaid reimbursement is not available for inpatient services in a specialty hospital. 35. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.i. provides: Preferences Among Competing Applicants for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Services. In weighing and balancing statutory and rule review criteria, preference will be given to applicants who: Provide Medicaid and charity care days as a percentage of its total patient days equal to or greater than the average percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days of total patient days provided by other hospitals in the district, as determined for the most recent calendar year prior to the year of the application for which data are available from the Health Care Cost Containment Board. Propose to serve the most seriously mentally ill patients (e.g. suicidal patients; patients with acute schizophrenia; patients with severe depression) to the extent that these patients can benefit from a hospital-based organized inpatient treatment program. Propose to service Medicaid-eligible persons. Propose to service individuals without regard to their ability to pay. Provide a continuum of psychiatric services for children and adolescents, including services following discharge. The preferences are similar to those in CON rules relating to other types of health services and are intended to implement, in part, the legislative mandate that the agency consider an applicant's ". . . past and proposed provision of health care services to medicaid patients and the medically indigent." Section 381.705(1) (n), F.S. Under Medicaid reimbursement general hospitals are paid a set per diem based on a variety of services provided to all Medicaid patients, regardless of actual cost of the individual service. As psychiatric services are generally less costly than other services on a per diem basis, hospitals may recoup a greater percentage of their costs in serving Medicaid psychiatric patients. This and the fact that public hospitals receive some governmental subsidies do not obviate the need for incentives in the CON program. Not all of the charity care provided by these hospitals is funded and a large amount is written off. Although Petitioners argue that the preferences are not needed, or are too generous, none provide competent evidence that the facilities who do not enjoy the preferences are unduly prejudiced. The 40% allocation of bed need to general hospitals is a guideline, not a maximum, as applied by the agency, and presumes that there are general hospitals competing in any batch in question. It is not intended to frustrate a separate section of the rule which allows a hospital with at least an 85% occupancy rate to expand regardless of need shown in the formula and the occupancy rate district-wide. See 10- 5.011(1) (o)4.d. and g. "Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes" The proposed rules contain three provisions relating to a hospital's evaluation of its patients' treatment outcomes. Rule 10-5.011(1) (o)3.i, includes among "required services", ". . . an overall program evaluation of the treatment outcomes for discharged patients to determine program effectiveness." Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)8.j., requires in the application, A description of the methods to be used to evaluate the outcome of the treatments provided and to determine the effectiveness of the program, including any summary evaluation outcome results for hospital inpatient psychiatric services provided at other facilities owned or operated by the applicant in Florida and other states. The data shall exclude patient specific information. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)9.e., imposes a similar additional requirement in applications from providers seeking more beds: A summary description of any treatment outcome evaluation of the hospital inpatient general psychiatric services provided at the facility for which additional beds are requested, for children, adolescents or adults as applicable to the facility for the 12-month period ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed bed need pool. The purpose of these requirements, according to HRS, is to insure that hospitals will know whether its patients are better off when they leave than when they were admitted to the program. Most hospitals have such knowledge. The terms, "outcome determination", "summary evaluation outcome results", "summary description of treatment outcome evaluation" and "overall program evaluation of treatment outcomes", are nowhere defined in the proposed rules, and the department intends to leave to each applicant or provider the methodology for determining whether its patients are "better off" for having been in its program. Hospitals do not routinely evaluate their patients after discharge and such follow up would be difficult and costly. Most hospitals do, however, establish a treatment plan upon admission, continue to review and revise that plan as needed throughout treatment, and determine the patients' readiness for discharge based on the goals successfully attained. This is the process described by Florida Hospital's Center of Psychiatry Administrative Director. The rules require no more than a description similar to that provided by Florida Hospital. The rules set no standards and do not dictate that follow- up of discharged patients be accomplished, even though post discharge evaluation may be of value and is generally accepted as the best tool for measuring treatment effectiveness. The measurement of treatment outcome is an inexact process and relies on a series of subjective standards which need to be described. HRS does not intend to set those standards and, other than have its applicants demonstrate that a process is in place, the agency has no idea how the required information will impact its CON review. Without definitions and standards, the agency will have no way of comparing one applicant's information with another's. Without specificity and more guidance the rules fail to apprise the applicant of what is required and will provide no meaningful information to the agency in its CON review function. Miscellaneous Provisions The Non-Physician Director. The proposed definition of "Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Services" in Rule 10-5.011(1) (o)2.1. includes services provided under the direction of a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist In drafting this definition, agency staff relied on advice from experts at their workshops and on advice from the agency's own Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office, to the effect that professionals, other than physicians, are qualified to direct the units. Interpretation and Application. It is not the intention of HRS that its rules be interpreted to override good medical practice or the sound judgement of treating physicians. Thus, the rules would not prohibit stabilization of a patient who is presented to the emergency room of a hospital without a CON for substance abuse or psychiatric services. Stabilized Alzheimers patients may be housed in nursing homes. Nor do the rules prohibit or subject to sanctions the occasional admission of a psychiatric or substance abuse patient to a non-substance abuse or psychiatric bed so long as this occurs infrequently in a hospital without psychiatric or substance abuse programs. "Scatter" beds are not eliminated. Those beds would continue to be licensed as acute-care beds, as they would not be considered part of an organized program, with staff and protocols, to provide psychiatric or substance abuse services. Proposed rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.h.(v) provides that applicants for IRTPs for children and adolescents seeking licensing as a specialty hospital must provide documentation that the district's licensed non-hospital IRTPs do not meet the need for the proposed service. The department is not seeking specific utilization data in this regard, as such is not available. General information on the availability of alternatives to inpatient hospital services is obtainable from local health councils and mental health professionals in the community. Quarterly Reports. Proposed rule 10-5.011(1)(o)10. requires: Facilities providing licensed hospital inpatient general psychiatric services shall report to the department or its designee, within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter, the number of hospital inpatient general psychiatric services admissions and patient days by age and primary diagnosis ICD-9 code. The Health Care Cost Containment Board (HCCCB) is already collecting similar quarterly data from providers. The reporting system is being updated and improved but in the meantime HRS is experiencing problems with the type and accuracy of the data it receives from HCCCB. One problem is that HCCCB collects its data with regard to all discharges in a psychiatric or substance abuse diagnostic category, whereas HRS is interested only in data from a psychiatric or substance abuse program. Until the system improves, HRS needs the information it seeks from the providers in order to plan and apply the need methodology. The agency intends to designate local health councils to collect the data and has already worked with them to set up a system. If reports provided to the HCCCB comply with the proposed requirement, HRS has no problem in receiving a duplicate of those reports. The Economic Impact Statement Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., HRS prepared an economic impact statement for the proposed rule. It was authored by Elfie Stamm, a Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor with HRS. Ms. Stamm has a Masters degree in psychology and has completed course work for a Ph.D. in psychology. She has been employed by HRS for 13 years, including the last ten years in the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning. She is responsible for developing CON rules, portions of the state health plan, and special health care studies. It was impossible for Ms. Stamm to determine how the rule could impact the public at large. The economic impact statement addresses generally the effect of abolishing the distinction between long and short term services and acknowledges that the rule will increase competition among short term service providers. The impact statement also addresses a positive impact on current long term providers.
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need Application Number 9099, filed by Columbia/JFK Medical Center, L.P., d/b/a JFK Medical Center, to convert 20 skilled nursing beds to 20 acute care beds, meets the criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact Columbia/JFK Medical Center, L.P., d/b/a JFK Medical Center (JFK) is the applicant for Certificate of Need (CON) Number 9099 to convert a 20-bed hospital-based skilled nursing unit (SNU) to 20 general acute care or medical/surgical beds. The construction cost is approximately $117,000, of the total project cost of $151,668. JFK is an affiliate of Columbia Hospital System (Columbia), the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the state agency which administers the CON program for health care services and facilities in Florida. JFK is a 343-bed hospital located in Atlantis, Florida, in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 5. Pursuant to a previously approved CON, an additional 24 acute care beds are under construction at JFK, along with 12 CON-exempt observation beds, at a cost of approximately $4 million. In August 1998, JFK was allowed to convert 10 substance abuse beds to 10 acute care beds. Other acute care hospitals in District 9 include the Petitioners: St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's), and Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. (Good Samaritan), which are located in northern Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9, Subdistrict 4, approximately 11 and 9 miles, respectively, from JFK. The remaining hospitals in District 9, Subdistrict 5, in southern Palm Beach County, and their approximate distances from JFK are as follows: Wellington (8 miles), Bethesda (7 miles), West Boca (18 miles), Delray (12 miles), and Boca Raton Community (17 miles). JFK and Delray are both "cardiac" hospitals offering open heart surgery services, with active emergency rooms, and more elderly patients in their respective service areas. The parties stipulated to the following facts: JFK's CON application was submitted in the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") second hospital batching cycle in 1998, and was the only acute care bed application submitted from acute care bed District 9, Subdistrict 5. AHCA noticed its decision to approve JFK's CON 9099 by publication in Volume 25, Number 1, Florida Administrative Weekly, dated January 8, 1999. Good Samaritan and St. Mary's each timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding challenging approval of JFK's CON application. By Order dated March 17, 1999, the cases arising from those petitions were consolidated for the purposes of all future proceedings. JFK has the ability to provide quality care and has a record of providing quality of care. §408.035(1)((c), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application, at Schedule 6 and otherwise, projects all necessary staff positions and adequate numbers of staff, and projects sufficient salary and related compensation. See, §408.035(1)(h). JFK has available the resources, including health personnel, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation. See, §408.035(1)(h), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application proposal is financially feasible in the immediate term. §408.035(1)(i), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application proposal is financially feasible in the long term, except, Good Samaritan and St. Mary's contend as it relates to projected utilization. §408.035(1)(i), Fla. Stat. Schedules 9 and 10 and the architectural schematics in JFK's application are complete and satisfy all applicable CON application requirements. Schedule 1 in the application is complete, reasonable, and not at issue. JFK's proposed construction/renovation design, costs, and methods of construction/renovation are reasonable and satisfy all applicable requirements. See, §408.035(1)(m), Fla. Stat. JFK's CON application satisfies all minimum application content requirements in Section 408.037(1), Florida Statutes; except that Good Samaritan and St. Mary's contend that subsection (1)(a), is not satisfied. JFK certified that it will license and operate the facility if its CON proposal is approved. See, §408.037(2), Fla. Stat. JFK's Letter of Intent was timely filed and legally sufficient. See, §408.039(2)(a) and (c), Fla. Stat. Good Samaritan does not provide cardiac catheterization services, angioplasty, or open heart surgery. St. Mary's does not provide elective angioplasty or open heart surgery services. JFK is one of the hospitals to which Good Samaritan and St. Mary's transfer patients in need of inpatient cardiac catheterization services, angioplasty, and open heart surgery. Neither Good Samaritan nor St. Mary's have any present plans to apply for CON approval to add skilled nursing beds or acute care beds. The parties also stipulated that Subsections 408.035(1)(e), (f), (g), (h) - as related to training health professionals, (j), (k), and (2), Florida Statutes, are not at issue or not applicable to this proposal. For the batching cycle in which JFK applied for CON Number 9099, AHCA published a fixed need of zero for District 9, acute care subdistrict 5. In the absence of a numeric need for additional acute care beds in the subdistrict, JFK relied on not normal circumstances to support the need for its proposal, including the following: delays in admitting patients arriving through the emergency room to inpatient beds, delays in moving patients from surgery to recovery to acute care beds, and seasonal variations in occupancy exceeding optimal levels and, at times, exceeding 100%. Good Samaritan and St. Mary's oppose JFK's CON application. In general, these Petitioners claimed that other problems cause overcrowding in the emergency room at JFK, that the type of beds proposed will not be appropriate for the needs of most patients, that "seasonality" is not unique to or as extreme at JFK, and that a hospital-specific occupancy level below that set by rule cannot constitute a special or not normal circumstance. If JFK achieves the projected utilization, experts for Good Samaritan and St. Mary's also projected adverse financial consequences for those hospitals. Rule 59C-1.038(5) - special circumstances During the hearing, the parties stipulated that the numeric need for new acute care beds in the subdistrict is zero. The rule for determining numeric need also includes the following provision: (5) Approval Under Special Circumstances. Regardless of the subdistrict's average annual occupancy rate, need for additional acute care beds at an existing hospital is demonstrated if the hospital's average occupancy rate based on inpatient utilization of all licensed acute care beds is at or exceeds 80 percent. The determination of the average occupancy rate shall be made based on the average 12 months occupancy rate for the reporting period specified in section (4). Proposals for additional beds submitted by facilities qualifying under this subsection shall be reviewed in context with the applicable review criteria in section 408.035, F.S. The applicable time period for the special circumstances provision is calendar year 1997. JFK's reported acute care occupancy was 76.29% in 1997, and 79.7% in 1998, not 80%, as required by the rule. JFK and AHCA take the position that other special circumstances may, nevertheless, be and have been the basis for the approval of additional acute care beds. JFK also maintained that the reported average occupancy levels understated the demand for and actual use of its inpatient beds. Due to seasonal fluctuations caused by the influx of winter residents, JFK reached or exceeded 100% occupancy on 5 or 6 days, exceeded 80% occupancy on 20 days, and averaged 90.9% occupancy, in January 1999. In February 1999, the average was 96.5%, but was over 100% on 8 days, and over 90% on 25 days. In March 1999, the average occupancy was 90.1%, but exceeded 100% on one day, and 90% on 17 days. In recent years, the "season" also has extended into more months, from approximately Thanksgiving to Easter or Passover. It also includes flu season which disproportionately affects the health of the elderly. JFK also demonstrated that occupancy varies based on the day of the week, generally highest on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and lowest on weekends. JFK's acute care beds were also occupied by patients who were not classified as 24-hour medical/surgical inpatients. Others included observation and 23-hour patients, covered by Medicare or health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Some of those patients were classified initially as outpatients to lower reimbursement rates, but routinely subsequently reclassified and admitted as inpatients. In fact, during the applicable time period for determining occupancy, Medicare allowed patients to be classified as outpatients for up to 72-hour hospital stays. Subsequently, Medicare reduced the allowable hospital stay to 48 hours for all "outpatients," according to AHCA's expert witness. When not classified as inpatients, patients are not counted in average occupancy rates which are based solely on the admitted inpatient census, counted each midnight. For example, in February 1999, the average daily census for 23-hour patients was 10.8 patients, which, when combined with 24-hour patients, results in an average occupancy of 99.7% for the month. Due to the Medicare classification system, some but not all of the so- called 23-hour patients affect the accuracy of the inpatient utilization data. According to AHCA's expert witness, however, numeric need cannot be determined because of JFK's failure to quantify the number of Medicare patients who actually affected the acute care bed utilization. The 23-hour or observation patients may use, but do not require CON-approved and licensed acute care beds. Instead, those patients may be held in either non-CON, non-licensed "observation" beds or in licensed acute care beds. As AHCA determined, to the extent that 23-hour patients in reality stayed longer, and adversely affected JFK's ability to accommodate acute care patients, their presence can be considered to determine if special circumstances exist. Combining 24-hour and 23-hour patients, JFK experienced an occupancy rate of 80% in 1996, and 85.7% in 1997. While some of the 23-hour patients were, in fact, outpatients who should not be considered and others stayed from 24 hours up to 3 days and should be considered, JFK's proportion of Medicare services is important to determining whether special circumstances based on acute care utilization exist. With 74% of all JFK patients in the Medicare category, but without having exact numbers, it is more reasonable than not to conclude that the occupancy level is between the range of 76.29% for acute care only and 85.7% for acute care and 23-hour patients. A reasonable inference is that JFK achieved at least 80% occupancy of patients who were in reality inpatients in its acute care beds in 1997. The expert health planner for the Petitioners conceded that bed availability declines, capacity is a constraint, and high occupancy becomes a barrier to service at some level between 80 and 83% occupancy. In a prior CON filed on behalf of Good Samaritan for a 4-bed addition to an 11-bed neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), the same expert asserted that 76% occupancy was a reasonable utilization standard. That occupancy level was based on the desire to maintain 95% bed availability. An exact comparison of the occupancy levels in this and the NICU case, however, is impossible due to the small size of the NICU unit and the fact that the applicant met the occupancy level in that rule for special circumstances. The statistical data on the number patients actually using acute care beds at JFK in excess of 24-hours despite their classification, supports its claim of overcrowding. Emergency Room Conditions JFK described overcrowding in its emergency department as another special circumstance creating a need for additional acute care beds. The emergency room at JFK has 37 bays each with a bed and another 15 to 17 spaces used for stretchers. Eighteen parking spaces are reserved for ambulances in front of the emergency department. It is not uncommon for a patient to wait in the JFK emergency room up to 24 hours after being admitted to the hospital, before being moved to an acute care bed. In February 1999, after having converted 10 substance abuse beds to acute care beds in October 1998, JFK still provided 234 patient days of acute care in the emergency department. The waiting time for patients to receive a bed after being admitted through the emergency department ranged from 10 hours to 5 days in the winter, and from an average of 6 hours up to 24 hours in the summer. While JFK claims that the quality of care is not adversely affected, it does note that patient privacy and comfort are compromised due to the noise, lights, activity, and lack of space for visitors in the emergency room. JFK's patients tend to be older and sicker than the average. As a result, more patients arriving at its emergency room are admitted to the hospital. In the winter of 1998, JFK was holding up to 35 acute care inpatients at a time in the emergency room. Nationally, from 15% to 20% of emergency room patients are admitted to hospitals. By contrast, almost twice that number, or one-third of JFK's emergency room patients become admitted inpatients. Emergency room admissions are also a substantial number of total admissions at JFK. In calendar year 1998, slightly more than 65% of all inpatient admissions to JFK arrived through the emergency room, most by ambulance. Ambulance arrivals at any particular hospital are often dictated by the patient's condition, with unstable patients directed to the nearest hospital. Once patients are stabilized in the emergency room at JFK, those requiring obstetric, pediatric, or psychiatric admissions are transferred from JFK which does not provide those inpatient services. Emergency room patients in need of acute care services provided at JFK, like the neonates at issue in the prior Good Samaritan application, are unlikely candidates for transfer The emergency room at JFK receives up to 50,000 patient visits a year, up from approximately 32,000 annual visits five years ago. JFK operates one of the largest and busiest emergency departments in Palm Beach County. Due to overcrowding in the emergency department at Delray Hospital, in southern Palm Beach County, patients have been diverted to other facilities, including JFK. In terms of square footage, JFK's emergency room does not meet the standards to accommodate the 52 to 54 bays and stretchers and related activities. JFK lacks adequate space for support services which should also be available in the emergency department. The Petitioners asserted that enlarging the emergency room will alleviate its problems. JFK demonstrated, however, that regardless of the physical size of the emergency room, optimal patient care requires more capacity to transfer patients faster to acute care beds outside the emergency department. Conditions in Other Departments Of 343 operational beds at JFK at the time of the final hearing, 290 were monitored or telemetry acute care beds, 30 were critical care beds, and 23 were non-monitored, non-critical care beds. Most of the monitored beds are in rooms equipped with antennae to transmit data from electrodes and monitors when attached to patients. When monitoring is not necessary, the same beds are used by regular acute care patients. The large number of monitored beds located throughout the hospital in various units reflects JFK's largely elderly population and specialization in cardiology. In 1998, 820 inpatient cardiac catheterizations (caths) were performed at JFK. Petitioners Good Samaritan and St. Mary's transferred 90 and 28 of those cath patients, respectively to JFK. In the first five months of 1999, 449 caths were performed, including procedures on 35 patients transferred from Good Samaritan and 16 from St. Mary's. Cath lab patients are held in the lab longer after their procedures when beds are not available in cardiac or the post- anesthesia care units. The Petitioners suggested that cath lab patients could be placed in a 12-bed holding area added to the lab in July 1999; however, that space was expected to be filled by patients being prepared for caths. Open heart surgery is available in Palm Beach County at three hospitals, Delray, JFK and Palm Beach Gardens. Patients admitted to JFK for other primary diagnoses often require cardiac monitoring even though they are not in a cardiac unit. The additional 24 beds which were under construction at the time of the final hearing will also be monitored beds. The 20 beds at issue in this proceeding will not be monitored. The Petitioners questioned whether non-monitored beds will alleviate overcrowding at JFK where so many patients require monitoring. JFK physicians in various specialties testified concerning conditions in other areas of the hospital. A nephrologist, who consults primarily in intensive care units, described the backlog and delay in moving patients from intensive care into acute care beds. A cardiologist noted that patients are taking telemetry beds they do not need because there is no other place to put them. A general and vascular surgeon described the overcrowding as a problem with the ability to move patients from more to less intensive care when appropriate. Elective surgeries have been delayed to be sure that patients will have beds following surgery. The evidence presented by JFK supports the conclusion that the additional acute care beds will assist in alleviating overcrowding in other hospital units, including backlogs in the existing monitored beds. JFK has established as factual bases for special circumstances that its high occupancy exceeds the optimal much of the year, aggravated by seasonal fluctuations; that it has relatively large emergency room admissions over which it has no control; and that its intensive care and monitored beds are not available when needed. Number of Beds Needed With the conversion, in 1998, of 10 substance abuse beds to acute care beds and the 1999 construction of 24 of 40 additional beds requested by JFK, the number of licensed and approved beds at JFK increased to 367. In addition, with CON- exemption, JFK has added observation beds. As a result of AHCA's partial approval of the previous JFK request for new construction and due to unfavorable changes in Medicare reimbursement policies for hospital-based SNUs, JFK now seeks this 20-bed conversion. JFK ceased operating the SNU in October 1998, after Medicare reimbursement changed to a system based on resource utilization groups (RUGs). JFK was unable to operate the SNU without financial losses, that is, unable to cover its patient care costs under the RUGs system. The proposal to convert the beds back to acute care, as they were previously licensed will allow JFK to reconnect existing oxygen lines in the walls and to use the beds for acute care patients. Although Good Samaritan and St. Mary's suggested that JFK can profitably operate a SNU, there was no evidence presented other than its previous occupancy levels which were very high, and the fact that Columbia is not closing all of its SNUs. The Petitioners also question JFK's ability to use its SNU beds for acute care and/or observation patients. AHCA, however, took the position that acute care licensure is required for beds in which acute care patients are routinely treated. Otherwise, the agency would not have accurate data on utilization, bed inventory, and the projected need. In order to demonstrate the number of beds needed, JFK's expert used historical increases in admissions. Some admissions data was skewed because the parent corporation, Columbia, closed Palm Beach Regional in 1996, and consolidated its activities at JFK. Excluding from consideration the increase of 3,707 admissions from 1995 to 1996, JFK's expert considered approximately 800 as reasonable to assume as an average annual increase. That represents roughly the mid-point between the 1996 to 1997 increase of 605, and the 1997 to 1998 increase of 1,076 admissions. A projected increase of 800 admissions for an average 5-day length of stay would result in an increase of 4,000 patient days a year which, at 80% occupancy, justifies an increase of 14 beds a year. Considering the closing of Palm Beach Regional, the number of beds in the subdistrict will have been reduced by 170. At the hearing, JFK's expert also relied on 3.3% annual patient day increase to project the number of beds needed, having experienced an increase of 5.8% from 1997 to 1998. Using this methodology, JFK projected a need for 20 additional acute care beds by 2002, and over 40 more by 2004. That methodology assumed patient growth in the excess of population growth and, necessarily, an increase in market share. JFK's market share increased in its primary service area from approximately 19% in 1993 to 27% in 1997. But the market share also slightly declined from 1997 to 1998. AHCA's methodology for determining the number of beds needed was based on the entire population of Palm Beach County, not just the more elderly southern area. It also assumed that JFK's market share would remain constant. Using this more conservative approach than JFK, AHCA projected a need for 383 acute care beds, or 16 beds added to the current total of 367 licensed and approved beds, at an optimal 75% occupancy by the year 2004. AHCA relied on a projection of 104,959 total patient days in 2004. Using the same methodology, JFK's expert determined that total projected patient days for 1998 would have been 94,225, but the actual total was 98,126 patient days. AHCA's methodology underestimates the number of beds needed, but does confirm that more than 16 additional beds will be needed by 2004. AHCA's reliance on 75% as an optimal future occupancy level as compared to the hospital-specific historical level of 80% was criticized, as was the use of the year 2004 as a planning horizon. The rule requires 80% occupancy for a prior reporting period and does not establish any planning horizon. Good Samaritan and St. Mary's used 80% occupancy in their analysis of bed need. At 80% occupancy, Petitioners projected an average daily census of 265 patients in 331 beds in 2001, or 268 patients in 334 beds in 2002, and 270 patients in 358 beds in 2003, as compared to 367 existing and approved beds. The Petitioners' projection is an underestimate of bed-need based on the actual average daily census of 269 patients in 1998. The Petitioners' methodology erroneously projects a need for fewer licensed beds than JFK has currently, despite the special circumstances evincing overcrowding. At 80% occupancy, based on the special circumstances rule, a hospital exceeds the optimal level and needs more beds. But, according to the Petitioners, 80% is a future occupancy target for the appropriate planning horizon of 2002. As AHCA's expert noted, it is illogical to use 80% as both optimal and as an indication of the need for additional beds. Similarly, it is not reasonable to use a planning horizon which coincides with the time when more beds will be needed. Therefore, the use of 75% for the five-year planning horizon of 2004 is a reasonable optimal target, as contrasted to the need for additional beds when 80% occupancy is reached at some future time beyond the planning horizon. AHCA's underestimate of need at 16 more beds by 2004, and JFK's overestimate of need at 40 more beds by 2004, support the conclusion that the requested addition of 20 beds in this application is in a reasonably conservative range. Rule 59C-1.038(6)(a) and Subsection 408.035(l)(n) - service and commitment to medically indigent; and Rule 59C-1.038(6)(b) - conversion of beds Rule 59C-1.038(6), Florida Administrative Code, also includes the following criteria: Priority consideration for initiation of new acute care services of capital expenditures shall be given to applicants with documented history of providing services to medically indigent patients or a commitment to do so. When there are competing applications within a subdistrict, priority consideration shall be given to the applications which meet the need for additional acute care beds in a particular service through the conversion of existing underutilized beds. Subsection (a) of the Rule, overlaps with District 9 health plan allocation factor one, which must be considered pursuant to Subsection 408.035(1)(a), and with the explicit criterion of Subsection 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. All three require a commitment to and record of service to Medicaid, indigent and/or handicapped patients. JFK agreed to have its CON conditioned on 5% of the care given in the 20 new beds to Medicaid and charity patients. The commitment for the 24 beds under construction is 3% for Medicaid and charity patients. If charity patients are defined as those with family incomes equal to or below 150% of federal poverty guidelines, JFK provided $2.9 million in charity care in calendar year 1998, and $720,000 as of April for 1999. JFK provided an additional 3% to 5% in Medicaid care. The Medicaid total includes Palm Beach County Health Care District patients, who are also called welfare patients. The charity care provided by JFK is equivalent to approximately 1% of its gross revenue. JFK explained its relatively low Medicaid care as a function of its relatively limited services for people covered by Medicaid, particularly, the young who utilize obstetrics and pediatrics. JFK pointed to the differing demographics in Palm Beach County with more elderly, who have Medicare coverage, located in its primary service area. Excluding pediatric and obstetric care, Medicaid covered 6.7% of patients in southern Palm Beach County as compared to 16.3% in northern Palm Beach County. Of the Medicaid patients, 2.9% in the southern area as compared to 6% in the northern area are adults. On this basis, JFK established the adequacy of its historical Medicaid and indigent care, and of its proposed commitment. Subsection (6)(b) of Rule 59C-1.038 is inapplicable when, as in this case, there are not competing applications to compare. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - other local health plan factors and Subsection 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care District 9 allocation factor 2, favoring cost containment practices, is enhanced by the proposed conversion rather than the new construction of beds. Within the Columbia group of hospitals, there is an effort to avoid unnecessary duplications of services. JFK caters to an elderly population and to providing cardiology, neurology, and oncology services. Columbia's Palms West provides pediatric and obstetric care. Another Columbia facility in Palm Beach County, Columbia Hospital, specializes in inpatient psychiatric services. The elimination of the hospital-based SNU at JFK does eliminate one level of care in the system, contrary to the criteria. District 9 health plan allocation factor 3 requires favorable consideration of plans, like JFK's, to convert unused or underutilized beds. In this case, the JFK SNU was highly utilized but unprofitable. There is no evidence that alternative placements in free-standing nursing homes are inappropriate or unavailable. Minor inefficiencies result from the time lag for transfers during which skilled nursing patients remain in acute care beds. To some extent, the inefficiencies were already occurring while JFK operated the SNU due to its high average census of 18 or 19 patients in a total of 20 SNU beds. Those inefficiencies are outweighed by the low cost conversion of 20 beds for $117,000, particularly as compared to its prior 24-bed construction for $4 million. In general, the applicable local health plan allocation factors support the approval of the JFK application. Rule 59C-1.030 - needs access for low income, minorities, handicapped, elderly, Medicaid, Medicare, indigent or other medically underserved In general, the proposal is intended to increase access to JFK's services by decreasing waiting times for admissions. The services are used by a large number of elderly patients, who are primarily covered by Medicare. JFK demonstrated that the population in its service area also tends to be wealthier than the population in northern Palm Beach County. Medicaid and indigent access to care at JFK is consistent and reasonable given the demographic data presented. Access for elderly Medicare patients will be enhanced by the proposal. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) - accessibility, availability, appropriateness, and adequacy of like and existing services Good Samaritan and St. Mary's argue that hospitals below 75% occupancy are available alternatives to JFK's patients. Yet, those facilities are not viable alternatives for unstable patients admitted through the emergency room. Neither is it appropriate to transfer patients who need services provided at JFK. JFK does not allege that any problems exist at other facilities, but only that it is affected by special circumstances. From January to June 1998, the closest hospitals to JFK experienced wide-ranging occupancy levels from 92% at Delray, the hospital with services most comparable to those at JFK, to 57% at Bethesda, and 47% at Wellington. The wide range in occupancy rate is further indication of uniqueness of the need for patients to access services available only at Delray and JFK. Subsection 408.035(1)(d) - outpatient care or other alternatives Admitted inpatients have no alternatives to their need for acute care beds. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - alternative use of resources and accessibility for residents The continued use of the 20 beds as a SNU was suggested as an alternative. As noted, however, that proved to be financially unprofitable at JFK, in comparison to the low cost conversion to acute care beds. AHCA reasonably rejected the idea that of the beds being designated "observation" beds when used for acute care patients. In addition, in 1996, JFK estimated the cost of moving patients from bed to bed in the hospital due to the shortage of appropriate beds, when needed, at up to $1 million. This project is intended to meet a facility-specific need based on the demand for services at JFK from patients who cannot reasonably initially be sent or subsequently transferred to other hospitals. As such, JFK's additional beds do not meet the criterion for accessibility for all residents of the district. Subsection 408.035(1)(i) - utilization and long-term financial feasibility Good Samaritan and St. Mary's contend that JFK's proposal includes unrealistically high utilization projections for the additional 20 beds. Using 98,000 patient days in 1998, which excludes any days attributable to skilled nursing beds, total utilization projected in the second year is 78.4%. For the additional 20 beds, projected utilization is 77.4%. The expert for Good Samaritan and St. Mary's disagreed with the allocation of patient days between the existing and additional beds. If 80% utilization is assigned to existing 367 beds, as he suggested, then the average annual occupancy of the 20 new beds would be only 50%. The financial break-even point for the project, however, is 50 to 75 patient days, or 10 to 15 patients with average lengths of stay of 5 days. Therefore, even with the lower projected occupancy of 50%, or an average of 10 beds at any time, the project is financially feasible in the long-term. In reality, a separate allocation of patient days to the 20 new beds is somewhat arbitrary. It is also less important than total projected utilization, since the 20 beds do not represent a separate unit in which specialized services will be provided. The additional beds will become a part of the total medical/surgical inventory. By demonstrating that there will be sufficient total occupancy to exceed the financial break-even point in the newly converted beds regardless of the allocation of patient days to any particular bed, JFK demonstrated the long- term financial feasibility of the proposal for CON 9099. Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - impact on costs; effects of competition If the JFK proposal is approved, Good Samaritan anticipates a loss of 255 patients, or 1,392 patient days, which is equivalent to a financial loss of over $1.5 million. St. Mary's anticipates losses of 158 patients or 973 patient days, and in excess of $1 million. Both hospitals were experiencing overall operating losses in 1999. But, the estimates of financial losses for both hospitals did not take into consideration all of the expense reductions associated with serving fewer patients. Excluding pediatrics and obstetrics, which are not available at JFK, JFK's overlapping service areas with Good Samaritan and St. Mary's are minimal. Good Samaritan's market share in JFK's primary service area is 4.8%, and St. Mary's is 9.3%. Pediatrics and obstetrics contribute 30.7% of total patients at Good Samaritan, and 49.5% at St. Mary's. Physician overlap among the hospitals is also limited. Although 357 doctors admitted patients to JFK and 464 to St. Mary's in the first two quarters of 1998, the number of overlapping doctors was 28. With a total of 379 admitting doctors at Good Samaritan for the same period of time, only 21 were included in JFK's 357 admitting physicians. In general, doctors in the northern Palm Beach County acute care subdistrict seldom admit patients to hospitals in the southern subdistrict, and vice versa. The absence of overlapping medical staff also reflected the differences in the services. Most of the top twenty doctors who admitted patients to Good Samaritan and St. Mary's were obstetricians and pediatricians. When obstetricians and pediatricians are excluded, the number of overlapping doctors for JFK and Good Samaritan is reduced to 15, and for JFK and St. Mary's to 22. In addition to providing different services, to different areas of the County, doctors who practice primarily in one or the other subdistrict served patients in different payor classification mixes. In 1997, JFK's patients were 74% Medicare, consistent with the fact that a larger percentage of elderly patients live in JFK's service area. By contrast, Medicare patients were approximately 48% of the total at Good Samaritan, and 32% of the total at St. Mary's. Historically, the addition of acute care beds at JFK has not affected other hospitals in the district or even the same acute care subdistrict. After the conversion of 10 substance abuse beds in the fall of 1998, the acute care patient days at every hospital in the same subdistrict increased in early 1999 over comparable periods of time in 1998. The assumption that additional beds at JFK will take patients from other hospitals includes the assumption that JFK will draw a larger share of an incremental increase of patients. The assumption is, in other words, that all patients will be new to JFK. The expert health planner for Good Samaritan and St. Mary's conceded that facility-specific overcrowding can justify projections that the additional beds will accommodate the existing census plus growth attributable to increasing population, and will not generate new patients. The expert assumed, nevertheless that from 1478 to 1486 new patients (depending on whether the length of stay is rounded off) would be associated with JFK's project. From that total, the proportional losses allocated were 255 patients from Good Samaritan and 158 patients from St. Mary's. Another underlying assumption increase is that all of the new patients would go to other hospitals if JFK does not add 20 acute care beds. That assumption suggests that all of the patients could receive the services they need at the other facilities, which is not supported by the facts or current utilization data. More likely, with the addition of beds due to overcrowding, some patients will come from the existing hospital census at JFK. It is not reasonable to assume that JFK will have all new patients, nor that all patients could be treated at other hospitals in the absence of JFK's expansion. The proportion of emergency room admissions at JFK is reasonably expected to continue. Patients who arrive at JFK requiring open heart surgery, angioplasties or invasive cardiac caths are reasonably expected to continue to receive those services at JFK, including patients who are transferred to JFK from Good Samaritan and St. Mary's. Based on the failure to support the assumptions, and the differences in service areas, medical staff, specialties, and patient demographics, Good Samaritan and St. Mary's have not shown any adverse impact from the JFK proposal. On balance, considering the statutory and rule criteria for reviewing CON applications, JFK established, as a matter of fact, that it meets the special circumstance criteria related to emergency room admissions, pre- and post-surgical and intensive care backlogs, and average annual occupancy projections in excess of optimal levels.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered issuing CON 9099 to convert 20 skilled nursing beds to 20 acute care beds at Columbia/JFK Medical Center, L.P., d/b/a JFK Medical Center, on condition that a minimum of 5% of new acute care patient days will be provided to Medicaid and charity patients. The file of the Division of Administrative Hearings, DOAH Case No. 99-0714 is hereby closed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Thomas A. Sheehan, III, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Kolins, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Terry, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313
The Issue Whether Certificate of Need Application No. 8614, filed by Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., meets, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration relied upon an unpromulgated and invalid rule in preliminarily denying CON Application No. 8614.
Findings Of Fact Vencor Hospital South, Inc. (Vencor), is the applicant for certificate of need (CON) No. 8614 to establish a 60-bed long term care hospital in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), the state agency authorized to administer the CON program in Florida, preliminarily denied Vencor's CON application. On January 10, 1997, AHCA issued its decision in the form of a State Agency Action Report (SAAR) indicating, as it also did in its Proposed Recommended Order, that the Vencor application was denied primarily due to a lack of need for a long term care hospital in District 8, which includes Lee County. Vencor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vencor, Inc., a publicly traded corporation, founded in 1985 by a respiratory/physical therapist to provide care to catastrophically ill, ventilator-dependent patients. Initially, the corporation served patients in acute care hospitals, but subsequently purchased and converted free-standing facilities. In 1995, Vencor merged with Hillhaven, which operated 311 nursing homes. Currently, Vencor, its parent, and related corporations operate 60 long term care hospitals, 311 nursing homes, and 40 assisted living facilities in approximately 46 states. In Florida, Vencor operates five long term care hospitals, located in Tampa, St. Petersburg, North Florida (Green Cove Springs), Coral Gables, and Fort Lauderdale. Pursuant to the Joint Prehearing Stipulation, filed on October 2, 1997, the parties agreed that: On August 26, 1996, Vencor submitted to AHCA a letter of intent to file a Certificate of Need Application seeking approval for the construction of a 60-bed long term care hospital to be located in Fort Myers, AHCA Health Planning District 8; Vencor's letter of intent and board resolution meet requirements of Sections 408.037(4) and 408.039(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.008(1), Florida Administrative Code, and were timely filed with both AHCA and the local health council, and notice was properly published; Vencor submitted to AHCA its initial Certificate of Need Application (CON Action No. 8614) for the proposed project on September 25, 1996, and submitted its Omissions Response on November 11, 1996; Vencor's Certificate of Need Application contains all of the minimum content items required in Section 408.037, Florida Statutes; Both Vencor's initial CON Application and its Omissions Response were timely filed with AHCA and the local health council. During the hearing, the parties also stipulated that Vencor's Schedule 2 is complete and accurate. In 1994, AHCA adopted rules defining long term care and long term care hospitals. Rule 59C-1.002(29), Florida Administrative Code, provides that: "Long term care hospital" means a hospital licensed under Chapter 395, Part 1, F.S., which meets the requirements of Part 412, Subpart B, paragraph 412.23(e), [C]ode of Federal Regulations (1994), and seeks exclusion from the Medicare prospective payment system for inpatient hospital services. Other rules distinguishing long term care include those related to conversions of beds and facilities from one type of health care to another. AHCA, the parties stipulated, has no rule establishing a uniform numeric need methodology for long term care beds and, therefore, no fixed need pool applicable to the review of Vencor's CON application. Numeric Need In the absence of any AHCA methodology or need publication, Vencor is required to devise its own methodology to demonstrate need. Rule 59C-1.008(e) provides in pertinent part: If no agency policy exists, the applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Vencor used a numeric need analysis which is identical to that prepared by the same health planner, in 1995, for St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. (St. Petersburg). The St. Petersburg project proposed that Vencor would manage the facility. Unlike the current proposal for new construction, St. Petersburg was a conversion of an existing but closed facility. AHCA accepted that analysis and issued CON 8213 to St. Petersburg. The methodology constitutes a use rate analysis, which calculates the use rate of a health service among the general population and applies that to the projected future population of the district. The use rate analysis is the methodology adopted in most of AHCA's numeric need rules. W. Eugene Nelson, the consultant health planner for Vencor, derived a historic utilization rate from the four districts in Florida in which Vencor operates long term care hospitals. That rate, 19.7 patient days per 1000 population, when applied to the projected population of District 8 in the year 2000, yields an average daily census of 64 patients. Mr. Nelson also compared the demographics of the seven counties of District 8 to the rest of the state, noting in particular the sizable, coastal population centers and the significant concentration of elderly, the population group which is disproportionately served in long term care hospitals. The proposed service area is all of District 8. By demonstrating the numeric need for 64 beds and the absence of any existing long term care beds in District 8, Vencor established the numeric need for its proposed 60-bed long term care hospital. See Final Order in DOAH Case No. 97-4419RU. Statutory Review Criteria Additional criteria for evaluating CON applications are listed in Subsections 408.035(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, and the rules which implement that statute. (1)(a) need in relation to state and district health plans. The 1993 State Health Plan, which predates the establishment of long term care rules, contains no specific preferences for evaluating CON applications for long term care hospitals. The applicable local plan is the District 8 1996-1997 Certificate of Need Allocation Factors Report, approved on September 9, 1996. The District 8 plan, like the State Health Plan, contains no mention of long term care hospitals. In the SAAR, AHCA applied the District 8 and state health plan criteria for acute care hospital beds to the review of Vencor's application for long term care beds, although agency rules define the two as different. The acute care hospital criteria are inapplicable to the review of this application for CON 8614 and, therefore, there are no applicable state or district health plan criteria for long term care. (1)(b) availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services in the district; and (1)(d) availability and adequacy of alternative health care facilities in the district. Currently, there are no long term care hospitals in District 8. The closest long term care hospitals are in Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Fort Lauderdale, all over 100 miles from Fort Myers. In the SAAR, approving the St. Petersburg facility, two long term care hospitals in Tampa were discussed as alternatives. By contract, the SAAR preliminarily denying Vencor's application lists as alternatives CMR facilities, nursing homes which accept Medicare patients, and hospital based skilled nursing units. AHCA examined the quantity of beds available in other health care categories in reliance on certain findings in the publication titled Subacute Care: Policy Synthesis And Market Area Analysis, a report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, on November 1, 1995, by Levin-VHI, Inc. ("the Lewin Report"). The Lewin Report notes the similarities between the type of care provided in long term care, CMR and acute care hospitals, and in hospital-based subacute care units, and subacute care beds in community nursing homes. The Lewin Report also acknowledges that "subacute care" is not well-defined. AHCA has not adopted the Lewin Report by rule, nor has it repealed its rules defining long term care as a separate and district health care category. For the reasons set forth in the Final Order issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order, AHCA may not rely on the Lewin Report to create a presumption that other categories are "like and existing" alternatives to long term care, or to consider services outside District 8 as available alternatives. Additionally, Vencor presented substantial evidence to distinguish its patients from those served in other types of beds. The narrow range of diagnostic related groups or DRGs served at Vencor includes patients with more medically complex multiple system failures than those in CMR beds. With an average length of stay of 60 beds, Vencor's patients are typically too sick to withstand three hours of therapy a day, which AHCA acknowledged as the federal criteria for CMR admissions. Vencor also distinguished its patients, who require 7 1/2 to 8 hours of nursing care a day, as compared to 2 1/2 to 3 hours a day in nursing homes. Similarly, the average length of stay in nursing home subacute units is less than 41 days. The DRG classifications which account for 80 percent of Vencor's admissions represent only 7 percent of admissions to hospital based skilled nursing units, and 10 to 11 percent of admissions to nursing home subacute care units. Vencor also presented the uncontroverted testimony of Katherine Nixon, a clinical case manager whose duties include discharge planning for open heart surgery for patients at Columbia-Southwest Regional Medical Center (Columbia-Southwest), an acute care hospital in Fort Myers. Ms. Nixon's experience is that 80 percent of open heart surgery patients are discharged home, while 20 percent require additional inpatient care. Although Columbia-Southwest has a twenty-bed skilled nursing unit with two beds for ventilator-dependent patients, those beds are limited to patients expected to be weaned within a week. Finally, Vencor presented results which are preliminary and subject to peer review from its APACHE (Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation) Study. Ultimately, Vencor expects the study to more clearly distinguish its patient population. In summary, Vencor demonstrated that a substantial majority of patients it proposes to serve are not served in alternative facilities, including CMR hospitals, hospital-based skilled nursing units, or subacute units in community nursing homes. Expert medical testimony established the inappropriateness of keeping patients who require long term care in intensive or other acute care beds, although that occurs in District 8 when patients refuse to agree to admissions too distant from their homes. (1)(c) ability and record of providing quality of care. The parties stipulated that Vencor's application complies with the requirement of Subsection 408.035(1)(c). (1)(e) probable economics of joint or shared resources; (1)(g) need for research and educational facilities; and (1)(j) needs of health maintenance organizations. The parties stipulated that the review criteria in Subsection 408.035(1)(e), (g) and (j) are not at issue. (f) need in the district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Based on the experiences of Katherine Nixon, it is not reasonable for long term care patients to access services outside District 8. Ms. Nixon also testified that patients are financially at a disadvantage if placed in a hospital skilled nursing unit rather than a long term care hospital. If a patient is not weaned as quickly as expected, Medicare reimbursement after twenty days decreases to 80 percent. In addition, the days in the hospital skilled nursing unit are included in the 100 day Medicare limit for post-acute hospitalization rehabilitation. By contrast, long term care hospitalization preserves the patient's ability under Medicare to have further rehabilitation services if needed after a subsequent transfer to a nursing home. (h) resources and funds, including personnel to accomplish project. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that Vencor has sufficient funds to accomplish the project, and properly documented its source of funds in Schedule 3 of the CON application. Vencor has a commitment for $10 million to fund this project of approximately $8.5 million. At the hearing, AHCA also agreed with Vencor that the staffing and salary schedule, Schedule 6, is reasonable. (i) immediate and long term financial feasibility of the proposal. Vencor has the resources to establish the project and to fund short term operating losses. Vencor also reasonably projected that revenues will exceed expenses in the second year of operation. Therefore, Vencor demonstrated the short and long term financial feasibility of its proposal. needs of entities serving residents outside the district. Vencor is not proposing that any substantial portion of it services will benefit anyone outside District 8. probable impact on costs of providing health services; effects of competition. There is no evidence of an adverse impact on health care costs. There is preliminary data from the APACHE study which tends to indicate the long term care costs are lower than acute care costs. No adverse effects of competition are shown and AHCA did not dispute the fact that Vencor's proposal is supported by acute care hospitals in District 8. costs and methods of proposed construction; and (2)((a)-(c) less costly alternatives to proposed capital expenditure. The prehearing stipulation includes agreement that the design is reasonable, and that proposed construction costs are below the median in that area. past and proposed service to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Vencor has a history of providing Medicaid and indigent care in the absence of any legal requirements to do so. The conditions proposed of 3 percent of total patient days Medicaid and 2 percent for indigent/charity patients proposed by Vencor are identical to those AHCA accepted in issuing CON 8213 to St. Petersburg Health Care Management, Inc. Vencor's proposed commitment is reasonable and appropriate, considering AHCA's past acceptance and the fact that the vast majority of long term care patients are older and covered by Medicare. services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system. While Vencor's services are needed due to a gap in the continuum of care which exists in the district, it has not shown that it will be a part of a multilevel system in District 8. (2)(d) that patients will experience serious problems obtaining the inpatient care proposed. Patients experience and will continue to experience serious problems in obtaining long term care in District 8 in the absence of the project proposed by Vencor. Based on the overwhelming evidence of need, and the ability of the applicant to establish and operate a high quality program with no adverse impacts on other health care providers, Vencor meets the criteria for issuance of CON 8614.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue CON 8614 to Vencor Hospitals South, Inc., to construct a 60-bed long term care hospital in Fort Myers, Lee County, District 8. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Kim A. Kellum, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The parties have stipulated that these cases are properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings for de novo review of the Petitioners' applications for a certificate of need and that this action is controlled by the provisions of Chapters 120 and 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10-5 and 28- 5, F.A.C. The parties have further stipulated that portions of Section 481.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), and its counterparts under Section 10-5.11, F.A.C., have either been met or are not applicable. The portions of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which the parties have stipulated have been met or do not apply and the parties' summary of the content of those subsections are as follows: (3) both applicants have the ability to manage and operate facilities such as those applied for; (6) need in the services district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas; (7) need for research and training programs; (8) health and management manpower and personnel only. The remaining parts of (8) remain in issue; (10) special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations; (11) needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a special portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the service district. The parties stipulated that the remaining portions of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), remain in issue. Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the following issues require resolution: Is there a need for a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida? Do the Petitioners' proposals meet the criteria of Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which have not been stipulated to as having been met or as not being applicable? If a need exists for only one proposal and both Petitioners meet the appropriate criteria, which of the Petitioners should be granted a certificate of need? Should a certificate of need for a computerized axial tomography scanner (hereinafter referred to as a "CAT Scanner") be issued to AMI? Does Florida Hospital and/or OGH have the requisite standing to take part as parties in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact AMI is a publicly traded for-profit Delaware corporation which owned, managed or operated 103 hospitals in the United States and 29 hospitals outside the United States as of January, 1985. AMI also owns, manages or operates a number of other health care facilities, i.e., psychiatric care facilities and freestanding outpatient surgery centers. AMI also owns a number of subsidiary corporations which provide a variety of technologies and services in support of its hospitals. In Florida, AMI owns 100 percent or a majority interest of 9 hospitals. In its proposed findings of fact AMI has indicated that it "operates" these 9 hospitals. The record supports this finding, although the record also supports a finding that the 9 hospitals are separate legal entities. AMI initially filed a letter of intent to file a certificate of need application with the Department for a 175-bed hospital in Orange County, Florida, for review in the August 15, 1983, batching cycle. The letter of intent was rejected because it had not been timely submitted to the local health council. On October 12, 1983, AMI filed a second letter of intent with the Department in which it informed the Department that AMI "or a to-be-formed wholly-owned subsidiary of AMI intends to file a Certificate of Need application for a 175-bed hospital to be located along Highway 50 in the vicinity of the University of Central Florida in Orange County, Florida." On October 19, 1983, seven days after the letter of intent was filed, Articles of Incorporation were filed for University Community Hospital of Orlando, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UCH, Inc."). UCH, Inc., is a for-profit Florida corporation. It currently owns no assets. AMI's application, which was reviewed in the November 15, 1983, batching cycle, was denied by the Department. AMI subsequently reduced the number of beds it had requested in its application from 175 to 100 beds. No change in the application with regard to the services to be provided has been made by AMI. Based upon its amended application AMI has proposed to construct and operate a 100-bed "full-service" acute care hospital to be located in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposed hospital will include a separate outpatient unit, an on-site stationary CAT Scanner, a 24-hour a day emergency room and birthing rooms and will provide therapeutic and diagnostic inpatient services, and community outreach and wellness programs. Tertiary care services will not be provided at the proposed hospital but AMI intends to contract with existing providers of tertiary care services to provide those services to its patients. AMI has projected that the total cost of its proposal will be $19,698,831.00. This figure includes $566,700.00 for architectural and engineering fees, $6,268,747.00 for equipment, $1,025,000.00 for the acquisition of land, $10,095,000.00 for construction, $250,000.00 for start-up costs and $1,285,385.00 for capitalized interest. The proposed AMI facility will include separate entrances for outpatient surgery and the emergency room. The facility has been designed to take into account the trend in health care to provide outpatient and ambulatory services. Two of the four proposed operating rooms in the facility will be used primarily for outpatient surgery. The 8 birthing rooms to be included in the facility are designed in recognition of the trend in health care to provide a room in which the family can participate in the birthing process. A delivery room will also be provided. Finally, classroom space will be provided in the facility for allied health services training and continuing education. Winter Park. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is a not for-profit Florida corporation. It operates Winter Park, a 301 bed hospital in Winter Park, Orange County, Florida. The hospital provides a full range of medical services including a full-body CAT Scanner. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), because it is an organization designated in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. On October 31, 1983, Winter Park filed its letter of intent to file an application for a certificate of need with the Department in the same batching cycle as AMI. In its application Winter Park proposed to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposal does not include a CAT Scanner. Winter Park has projected that the total cost of its proposed facility will be $16,015,000.00. This amount includes $75,000.00 for project development, $50,000.00 for financing, $685,000.00 for professional services, $10,395,900.00 for construction, $4,457,700.00 for equipment and $351,400.00 for other related cost. Florida Hospital Florida Hospital is a not-for-project hospital owned by Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt, a division of the Adventist Church. Florida Hospital presently consists of 3 campuses: the main campus in Orlando and satellite campuses in Altamonte Springs, Seminole County, Florida and Apopka, Orange County, Florida. In the 75 years since the hospital was begun it has grown from a 20 bed hospital to its present size of 959 beds. Florida Hospital is a tertiary acute care hospital providing a full range of services including ambulatory surgery, a stationary full-body CAT Scanner, general inpatient medical and surgical services, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatric services, substance abuse treatment, open heart surgery, oncology and other services. Florida Hospital is involved in a number of teaching programs and internship programs. It is a teaching hospital with a number of positions dedicated to teaching, including a director of education. Florida Hospital would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is granted to either Petitioner. Florida Hospital has standing to intervene. OGH OGH is a not-for-profit 171-bed hospital located in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. It was founded in 1941 and has operated as a not-for-profit facility since 1945. OGH is licensed by the State of Florida as an acute care general hospital. The services provided by OGH include obstetrics, outpatient services, general inpatient medical and surgical services, pediatrics, a mobile CAT Scanner and other services. OGH would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is issued to either Petitioner. OGH has standing to intervene. THE NEED FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BEDS. Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C. Pursuant to Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the Department is responsible for determining whether health care facilities and services are needed in the State of Florida. To fulfill its responsibility with regard to acute care hospital beds, the Department has promulgated Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for acute care hospital beds in context with all applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed according to the methodology included in paragraphs (f),(g) and (h) below. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. An unfavorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when a calculated bed need exists but other criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not met. Based upon this Department goal, the need for acute care hospital beds is first determined by service district based upon the methodology included in Section 10-5.11(23)(f)-(h), F.A.C. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). For purposes of the Formula, acute care beds include general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical beds. Section 10 5.11(23)(c), F.A.C. The Petitioners are proposing to build a hospital with general medical and surgical, intensive care and obstetrical beds. Therefore, the Formula must be applied to determine if there is a need for their proposed hospitals. Under the Formula, acute care bed need is to be determined five years in the future: 1990 in these cases. Generally, acute care bed need is determined under the Formula based upon two age cohort population projections, statewide service-specific discharge rates, statewide service-specific lengths of stay, statewide service-specific occupancy standards and patient flow adjustments. See Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C. The bed need for the service district determined in accordance with Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C., is adjusted based upon the service district's historical use rate and projected occupancy rate. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The historical use rate to be used under the Formula is for the three most recent years and is based upon utilization of hospitals located in the service district. After applying the adjustment of Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., one final adjustment is required to complete the determination of acute care bed need under the Formula. Section 10-5.11(23)(h), F.A.C. provides for an adjustment to reflect peak demand in the service district. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing of these cases, application of the Formula results in a net acute care bed need of 89 beds or 146 beds, or an excess of 464 beds. These projections are all for the Department's District 7, which consists of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties, The Petitioners are proposing to build new hospitals in Orange County. The Formula projection of a net acute care bed need in District 7 of 89 beds is an outdated Department application of the Formula. The 146 net acute care bed need projection for District 7 is the Department's most current application of the Formula, dated March 12, 1985. The Department's most recent application of the Formula is not based upon a proper application of the adjustment for the District 7 projected occupancy rate and historical use rate under Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. In making this adjustment, the Department relied upon utilization data in determining the District 7 historical use rate from 1981, 1982 and 1983. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., requires that the historical use rate be based upon the most recent three years available. In these cases 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data was available to the Department. The fact that incorrect utilization data was used in determining the District 7 historical use rate was confirmed by Mr. Eugene Nelson, the Director of the Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department, Mr. Steve Windham, the Executive Director of the Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., and Mr. Lawrence W. Margolis, an expert health planner. Mr. Nelson also indicated that if 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data had been used by the Department in applying the Formula a more "contemporary picture of what's actually happening" would have be given. Mr. Margolis did apply the Formula using the most current utilization data to calculate the historical use rate of District 7. Based upon the data used by the Department in its most recent projection of acute care bed need for District 7, but substituting the current utilization data of 1982, 1983 and 1984, an application of the Formula results in a projected total acute care bed need in 1989 for District 7 of 4,416 beds. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved beds in District 7. Therefore, a proper application of the Formula based upon the most current data indicates that District 7 will have an excess of 464 acute care beds in 1989. A finding that District 7 will have an excess of acute care beds in 1989 is supported by the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in District 7. This reduction in hospital utilization, which began in 1982, has been evidenced by reductions in occupancy rates, average lengths of stay and admissions. This trend is likely to continue for an additional two to four years. The trend is sufficient to cause an excess in acute care beds despite increases in population. To add another 100 acute care hospital beds to Orange County would further reduce utilization. The reduced utilization of hospitals could become worse when new hospital beds are opened by Florida Hospital (210 beds) and Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County (81 beds). The opening of these beds could create a further excess of beds in District 7. There are a number of factors which have contributed to the decline in the use of hospitals: (1) there has been an increase in the use of health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations; (2) the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups, a method of reimbursement now being used by Medicare; and (3) there has been an increase in the use of outpatient medical services. Health maintenance organizations in Orange County alone could decrease patient days in hospitals from 800 days per 1,000 population to 350 days per 1,000 population. Because of the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups by Medicare, hospitals are trying to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Finally, there are 8 to 10 freestanding ambulatory surgery centers approved for Orange County which are, or will be, providing outpatient medical services. All of these factors have reduced hospital utilization in District 7. The current trend of reduced utilization of hospitals was recognized by Mr. Mark Richardson, AMI's expert in health planning. Mr. Richardson therefore recommended that AMI reduce its application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a hospital in Orange County from 175 acute care beds to 100 beds, which AMI did. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that District 7 will have an excess of at least 464 acute care beds in 1989 according to a proper application of the Formula of Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Although insufficient evidence was presented at the final hearing to forecast the exact acute care bed need for District 7 under the Formula for 1990, it does not appear that there will be any need for acute care beds in District 7 in 1990 in light of the fact that the trend toward decreased utilization of hospitals will probably continue for 2 to 4 more years. In fact, the evidence supports the conclusion that District 7 will continue to have an excess of beds in 1990. AMI has proposed findings of fact to the effect that there has been too much concern with "over-bedding" based upon computations such as those provided in the Formula. AMI further proposed findings of fact to the effect that a more rational approach to health planning "should be assuming adequate supply as opposed to considering a negative approach." These proposed findings of fact are rejected. The Department's rules and in particular, the Formula, are the law and will be followed in these cases. Whether "over-bedding" is over emphasized, the Formula clearly indicates that District 7 will be greatly overbedding in 1990. In addition to requiring an application of the Formula to determine acute care bed need for each Department service district, Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., requires that local health councils adopt acute care service subdistricts as an element of their local health plans. Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. District 7 has been divided along county lines into four subdistricts: Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties. Section 10-17.008, F.A.C. Prior to this proceeding AMI challenged the validity of Section 10- 17.008, F.A.C., the rule establishing subdistricts along county lines in District 7. The rule was upheld as valid in American Medical International, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 83- 3092R, September 28, 1984. Therefore, Orange, Seminole, Brevard and Osceola Counties constitute the only recognized subdistricts in District 7 for purposes of allocating acute care bed need in District 7. Section 10-5.11(23)(e), F.A.C., further provides that the district acute care bed need as determined by application of the Formula is to be allocated to each subdistrict established pursuant to Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. This allocation of acute care bed need to the subdistricts is to be made consistent with Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which provides that the local health council is to develop a district health plan and submit it to the Department. Elements of the district health plan necessary in the Department's review of certificate of need applications are required to be adopted by the Department as a part of its rules. Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the "Council"), has developed a district health plan which includes the methodology it employs to allocate the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts of District 7. That plan has also been submitted to the Department. The Department, however, has not adopted the district health plan for District 7 in its rules. This does not mean, however, that evidence pertaining to the Council's method of allocation is not relevant to, or should be ignored for purposes of, this proceeding. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, Orange County has an excess of acute care beds. This is true even if it is assumed that the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need for 89 or 146 acute care beds in District 7 is correct. According to Mr. Windham, application of the Council's subdistrict allocation methodology to the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need in District 7 for 89 acute care beds indicates that Orange County ",4 will have an excess of 81 acute care beds and that Seminole County will have an excess of 36 acute care beds. Mr. Windham's application of the Council's methodology for allocating bed need to the subdistricts of District 7 was based upon the Department's application of the Formula without the benefit of the more current utilization data. Therefore, if the most current data had been used, the projected excess beds for Orange County would be even greater. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Petitioners have failed to prove that there is any need under Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., for additional acute care beds in District 7 or in Orange or Seminole Counties. In fact, under Section 10- 5.11(23), F.A.C., there is a significant excess of acute care beds projected for Orange and Seminole Counties and District 7 as a whole. Winter Park has conceded this conclusion. AMI has in essence argued that any evidence as to the application of the Formula based upon the most current utilization data should be ignored because the Department has not yet officially applied the Formula based upon such data. Mr. Margolis, an expert in health planning, was clearly capable of applying the Formula based upon the most current information. His conclusions were also supported by Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Windham's testimony. AMI has in essence also argued that any evidence as to how acute care bed need in District 7 under the Formula should be allocated to the properly designated subdistricts should be ignored because the Council's methods of allocation have not been adopted as part of the Department's rules. Mr. Windham's unrebutted testimony, however, supports a finding that the Council's method of allocating the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts is a reasonable method for health planning purposes. The determination that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County does not necessarily preclude the issuance of a certificate of need for a new hospital to either or both of the Petitioners. Section 10- 5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that the Department will "not normally" approve an application if such an approval would result in acute care beds in excess of those needed as determined under the Formula. The rule goes on to provide that an application may be approved "when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need." Bed Need Based upon the Petitioner's Alternative to the Formula. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that there is a need for 146 acute care beds in District 7 based upon an application of the Formula. That finding of fact has been rejected, supra, because it was based upon the use of outdated utilization data. The Petitioner also failed to prove that there is a need for beds in Orange County based upon an application of the Formula. Winter Park's position throughout this proceeding and AMI's alternative position has been essentially that the population of east Orange County where the Petitioners propose to locate their facilities and parts of Seminole County do not have adequate accessibility to acute care hospital beds. In determining whether an application for a certificate of need should be issued for acute care hospital beds, Section 381.484(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides that the accessibility . . of like and existing health care services and hospitals in the service district of the applicant" should be considered. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that like and existing health care services are not accessible in portions of Orange and Seminole Counties and therefore there is a need for their proposed hospitals. The Petitioners' Medical Service Areas. AMI has identified and proposed to serve portions of Orange and Seminole Counties which purportedly have an access problem which it has designated as a "medical service area." AMI projects that the majority of its patients will be attracted from its medical service area (hereinafter referred to as an MSA) AMI's MSA consists of most of east Orange County and southeastern Seminole County. Generally, the MSA boundary runs south along most of the western shore of Lake Jessup in Seminole County, to and along Tuscawilla Road (Seminole and Orange County), to and along Highway 436 in Orange County, south to the Bee Line Expressway, east along the Bee Line Expressway to Highway 15, south along Highway 15 to the Orange-Osceola County line, east and then north along the Orange County line to the Seminole County line and along the Seminole County line north and then west to Lake Jessup. Winter Park has also identified and proposed to serve a MSA very similar to, although a little smaller than, AMI's MSA. The difference in size amounts to only a difference of 1000 less population in Winter Park's MSA. The portion of east Orange County included in the MSAs represents a distinct geopolitical and economic base. Each of the Petitioners and Florida Hospital presented testimony by experts in the field of demographics. Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D., for AMI, William J. Serow, Ph.D, for Winter Park and Stanley Smith, Ph.D., for Florida Hospital. Based upon their testimony, it is clear that the MSAs have experienced a great deal of population and economic growth since 1970 and that this growth will probably continue through 1990. During the period 1980 to 1985, the rate of population growth for Orange and Seminole Counties was 16 percent (23 percent for Seminole County alone). The rate of growth in Winter Park's MSA during this same period was 32 percent. For the period 1985 through 1990 the projected rate of growth for Orange County is 12 percent. The projected rate of growth from 1985 through 1990 for Winter Park's MSA is 23.3 percent. These figures indicate that the rate of growth for Orange County and the MSAs is slowing down. The figures also show that the MSA rate of growth is twice that of Orange and Seminole Counties. Looking at only the rate of growth of an area can be misleading. For example, a 50 percent rate of growth may not be as significant when applied to a population base of 10 as when applied to a larger population base. In terms of actual growth, the evidence proves that Orange County's population growth in terms of additional people is greater than the population growth of the MSAs. The evidence also establishes that population growth in the MSAs is projected to be greater for young adults and women of child bearing age (15 to 44 years of age), that there will be larger families and a greater number of children under 18 years of age in the MSAs than in Orange County as a whole and that the projected population of the MSAs will be newer to the area and generally more mobile than Orange County as a whole. Florida Hospital has suggested that "logic" leads to the conclusion that some of these projected trends will cause a decrease in utilization. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support such a finding of fact. The evidence clearly establishes that population growth in the MSAs will be concentrated between the western boundary of the MSAs at Highway 436 and Alafaya Trail (Highway 419), which is located in the western portion of the MSAs, during the next five years. In fact, more than half of the projected growth of east Orange County will occur in a one and a half mile corridor between Highway 436 and Goldenrod. It will be 5 to 10 years before population growth will begin to expand into any area east of Highway 419. Accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. The Department has promulgated Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1 and 2, F.A.C., for purposes of determining accessibility: Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population in an urban area subdistrict. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within a maximum automobile travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in a rural area subdistrict. The terms "urban area" and "rural area" are defined in Section 10- 5.11(23)(a)4 and 5, F.A.C., as follows: Urban Area. Urban area means a county designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, and having 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Rural Area. Rural area means a county not designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, or a county so designated but having fewer than 50,000 persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County meets the definition of an "urban area." It has been designated as part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County is not also a "rural area" as defined above as suggested by OGH although it does have some incorporated areas with less than 50,000 persons. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used only by local health councils in determining subdistrict allocations of acute care bed need and where a subdistrict allocation reveals a surplus of beds in a subdistrict. Although Section 10 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used in the manner suggested by AMI, Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is not clearly limited to such use. This section of the rule is titled "Geographic Accessibility Considerations." Its provisions are applicable in determining whether a geographic accessibility problem exists in District 7 or in the subdistricts of District 7. AMI, Winter Park and Florida Hospital presented testimony of expert traffic engineers: Mr. William A. Tipton for AMI, Mr. R. Sans Lassiter, P.E., for Winter Park and Mr. Sven Kansman for Florida Hospital. All three of these gentlemen based their travel studies on travel times to and from certain control points. The travel times were then averaged. Florida Hospital has suggested in its proposed recommended order that this method of determining travel times to and from control points and Mr. Tipton's testimony that "you probably wouldn't get as far in a given time going outbound [east" is significant because travel times from the MSAs west into Orlando, where the majority of the existing hospitals are presently located, would be shorter. This conclusion is reasonable. Therefore, travel times for the population of the MSAs to existing Orange County hospitals would be less than indicated by the traffic engineers. Also, the 30 minute contour lines on the traffic engineers' exhibits would extend farther into the MSAs. The studies performed by all three traffic engineers were performed in the same general manner as to the speed of the test vehicles. Test vehicle drivers were instructed to drive at average speed employing the "average car method," the "floating car technique" or the "moving car method." All three methods are essentially the same. The test runs were conducted in November and February by AMI'S expert, in the fall by Winter Park's expert and during the last two weeks of January by Florida Hospital's expert. January to March is the most congested time of the year in Orange County. Only two of the traffic engineers testified that their tests were conducted under "average travel conditions" as required by Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C.: Winter Park's and Florida Hospital's traffic engineers. These traffic engineers properly conducted their tests during off-peak and peak hours. Mr. Tipton, AMI's traffic engineer, conducted his tests only during the peak hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and only on week days (Monday to Thursday). According to Mr. Tipton, average travel conditions "doesn't mean anything" to a traffic engineer. Average travel conditions does mean something under the rule and to the other two traffic engineers. Mr. Tipton also indicated that the peak hours he conducted his tests during would not show "average travel conditions." Mr. Tipton also admitted that he averaged what amounted to the "worst case scenario" because it represented "real world conditions." Mr. Tipton's "real world conditions," however, is not the test of Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C. Mr. Tipton's tests have been given little weight because of his failure to take into account average travel conditions. None of the exhibits prepared by the three traffic engineers and accepted in evidence (AMI'S composite exhibit 8, Winter Park's exhibit 11 and Florida Hospital's exhibit 10) are totally consistent with the requirements of Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. AMI's composite exhibit 8 includes 30 minute contour lines representing Mr. Tipton's 30 minute drive times from only three hospitals in Orange County and one hospital in Seminole County and only shows the travel times to the east of those hospitals. Winter Park's exhibit 11 shows the 30 minute contour lines for seven hospitals in Orange County and two hospitals in Seminole County and generally only showns the travel times to the east. Florida Hospital's exhibit 10 shows the location of eight hospitals in Orange County, three in Seminole County and three in Brevard County but only shows the total 30 minute contour line for Florida Hospital's Orlando campus. The test under Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C., is whether existing acute care hospital beds are available and accessible within 30 minutes by automobile by 90 percent of the subdistrict's population. In order for AMI and Winter Park to prove that acute care hospital beds are not available and accessible within 30 minutes in Orange County, they needed to prove that more than 10 percent of the population of Orange County cannot access on existing acute care hospital bed within 30 minutes by automobile. In order to prove this crucial fact it is necessary to show the travel time based upon average travel conditions of the entire population of Orange County to all existing acute care hospitals. AMI and Winter Park have failed to do so. The evidence fails to show that more than 10 percent of Orange County's population is more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing Orange County hospitals. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is an accessibility problem under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Only 1 percent of the population of Orange County residing in the MSAs is located more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing hospitals in Orange and Seminole Counties. This is based upon the 1985 population and the projected 1990 population. In 1985 there are 4,232 people residing in the MSAs more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals. By 1990, there will only be 5,276 people projected to live more than 30 minutes from existing hospitals. These figures are maximum numbers. As indicated, supra, the evidence with regard to population growth in the MSAs proves that the projected population growth will be concentrated in the western portion of the MSAs--the portion of the MSAs closest to where existing hospitals are located. Most of the projected population growth through 1990 in the MSAs will clearly be within 30 minutes of existing hospitals. The projected 1990 population of 5,276 people who will reside more than 30 minutes from an existing Orange County or Seminole County hospital is well below 10 percent of Orange County's total projected population of 596,713. Additionally, the people in the MSAs who reside more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals are probably within 30 minutes of Jess Parrish Hospital in Titusville, Brevard County, Florida. There are no natural obstacles in Orange County which impede or prevent access to existing health care facilities. Well over 90 percent of Orange County's population can access a hospital within 30 minutes driving time. OGH has proposed findings of fact pertaining to the availability of motor vehicle and air ambulance services in Orange County. The accessibility test of Section 10-5.11 (23)(i), F.A.C., requires a consideration of automobile travel times under "average travel conditions," not emergency services. Therefore, these proposed findings of fact and OGH's proposed findings of fact as to the requirements of obtaining a trauma level designation are unnecessary. The evidence also clearly establishes that there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County. The average occupancy rates in District 7, Orange County and Seminole County for 1982, 1983 and 1984 were as follows: 1982 1983 1984 District 7 71.8% 70.34% 61.71% Orange County 69.5% 68.68% 60.80% Seminole County 76.0% 74.20% 59.39% Florida Hospital and OGH have experienced similar declines in utilization similar to those evidenced by these figures. Florida Hospital's utilization rate dropped from 86.3 percent in 1982 to 78.6 percent in 1984 and OGH's rate dropped from 88.5 percent in 1982 to 44.4 percent in 1984. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved acute care hospital beds in District 7. Based upon the 1984 utilization rate for District 7, over 1,800 acute care beds were empty on an average day in District 7 during 1984; In Orange County, approximately 1,000 acute care beds were empty on average during 1984. As indicated, supra, the decreasing acute care bed utilization rate is expected to continue for 2 to 4 years. Therefore, there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County at existing hospitals and there will be in 1990. Additionally, new acute care hospital beds have been approved for Orange County and Seminole County which are not yet open: 134 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Orlando campus and 76 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Altamonte Springs campus. Also 81 new beds will be opened in Brevard County. These additional beds will further increase the number of available acute care hospital beds in Orange and Seminole Counties and in District 7. Based upon the foregoing and the fact that there is a large number of unoccupied acute care beds available on average in Orange County, there is no geographic accessibility problem in Orange County or Seminole County under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Other Accessibility Considerations. Despite the evidence with regard to geographic accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., the Petitioners have argued that accessibility to acute care beds is a problem in the MSAs. Mr. Willard Wisler, Winter Park's administrator, although agreeing that "planning studies" indicated no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County, stated: But our posture has been that they have been misallocated, and that the east Orange County [sic) is a greatly underserved area on the basis of the number of hospital beds that are available to the people that live there. The evidence does establish that the majority of the hospitals in Orange County are located in the center of the County, in the City of Orlando, where the majority of the population is located and that there is only one hospital currently located in the MSAs. Currently, 6 percent of Orange County's acute care hospital beds are located in the MSAs at OGH while 19 percent of Orange County's population is located in the MSAs. The Petitioners have characterized this geographic distribution of acute care beds and population as a "maldistribution" of acute care beds. The disparity between the precentage of population and acute care beds in the MSAs will increase in the future because the projected rate of growth in the MSAs is greater than that of Orange County. It is projected that by 1990 22 percent of the Orange County population will be located in the MSAs. The centralization of acute care beds in Orange County, according to Mr. Van Talbert, Winter Park's expert health planner, constitutes irresponsible health planning: "It tends to perpetuate the old patterns of centralization, and I think that is inconsistent with contemporary thought in American society." Mr. Talbert also testified that the MSAs and particularly east Orange County, are greatly underserved based upon the number of hospital beds conveniently available to the people who live there. Even if Mr. Talbert's conclusions are correct and even if there is a "maldistribution" of acute care beds as defined by the Petitioners, this does not mean there is an accessibility problem in the MSAs sufficient to conclude that additional acute care beds are needed in District 7, Orange County or the MSAs. The fact that 22 percent of the population of Orange County may reside in the MSAs by 1990 with only 6 percent of the County's acute care beds is not the test. Even if it is true that "contemporary planning may indicate that centralization of acute care beds is poor planning," the pertinent statutes and rules only require a determination of whether acute care beds are available and accessible. The evidence in these cases clearly indicates that the population of the MSAs can access available acute care hospital beds in District 7. All the Petitioners have shown is that some residents of the MSAs "will be forced to make inconvenient drives to downtown hospitals," as stated in Winter Park's proposed recommended order. Likewise, AMI's proposed finding of fact that ",the realities of the situation reveal that the residents of the MSA and their physicians perceive serious access problems due to excessive travel distance, traffic congestion, the lack of convenience for patients who have to go to hospitals for tests, and the lack of convenience for families and friends having to make several trips a day to see a person in a hospital" does not prove there is an access problem. The perception of patients and physicians as to the inconvenience in accessing acute care beds does not prove there is an access problem sufficient to warrant a new hospital. In conjunction with the Petitioners' position with regard to "maldistribution" of acute care beds, the Petitioners have proposed findings of fact to the effect that previous Department responses to shifts in population growth away from where hospitals are located have been to authorize new hospitals. New hospitals in Altamonte Springs and Longwood in Seminole County, and in southwest Orange County (Sand Lake) have been cited as examples. Although Mr. Talbert's testimony supports these proposed findings of fact to some extent, there is insufficient evidence to conclude why those hospitals were authorized by the Department. If the evidence showed that additional acute care beds were needed in Seminole and Orange Counties when those hospitals were approved it would be consistent with the Department's rules to locate the additional acute care beds where population growth had occurred. In these cases, if there was an established need for an additional acute care hospital in Orange County, the evidence would probably justify placing it in east Orange County. The facts, however, do not indicate any need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Other MSA Considerations. It is not essential to identify a MSA for purposes of considering an application for a new acute care hospital as suggested by AMI. As discussed, infra, the designation of a MSA by an applicant may be helpful for some purposes, but not to determine whether there is a need for a new hospital. AMI has proposed a finding of fact that Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, both of which are located in Orlando, are tertiary care facilities providing services of higher complexity for patients; they therefore attract a substantial number of referral patients in need of more extensive, complex services which are not available from primary care hospitals. The existence of these tertiary facilities has justified the allocation of more acute care beds to Orange and Seminole Counties in the past. Although these facts were proved at the hearing, the overriding fact remains clear that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. AMI attempted to prove through Mr. Mark Richardson an expert in health planning, that there is a need for acute care beds in AMI's MSA based upon the characteristics of the MSA. Mr. Richardson testified that his projections were not based or contingent on the Formula of Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., and acknowledged the decline in utilization of acute care hospital beds in Orange County. Mr. Richardson did state that the Department's projection of a net acute care bed need of 89 beds under the Formula supported his projections. The projection of a need for 89 beds was clearly based upon outdated data. Use of current utilization data indicates an excess of 464 acute care beds. Therefore, if application of the Formula resulting in a bed need of 89 beds supports Mr. Richardson's projections, an application of the Formula which results in an excess of 464 acute care beds must indicate that Mr. Richardson's projections are suspect. Mr. Richardson's projections were clearly based primarily on the characteristics of AMI's MSA. Because of the narrow scope of Mr. Richardson's analysis, the trend in Orange County and District 7 as to reduced occupancy rates did not affect his projections. In particular, Mr. Richardson used an 80 percent occupancy rate for all beds except obstetric beds, for which he used a 75 percent rate. These occupancy rates are excessive when compared to the occupancy rates for District 7, and Orange and Seminole Counties. Additionally, Mr. Richardson failed to consider the effect of unopened acute care beds in Orange County on occupancy rates. On average, there are over 1,800 unoccupied acute care beds in District 7 and 1,000 unoccupied beds in Orange County. This does not include 134 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, 76 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Altamonte Springs campus or 81 acute care beds to be opened at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County. When opened, these additional acute care beds will further decrease occupancy rates in Orange County and District 7. Even if Mr. Richardson's projections were totally accurate, such a finding would not be relevant to the question of whether there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. That is the crucial question in these cases. Mr. Richardson and AMI have attempted to justify Mr. Richardson's projections by suggesting that the Department does not consider itself precluded from assessing the need for acute case beds on an area within a subdistrict based upon Mr. Nelson's testimony. Mr. Nelson's testimony clearly does not support the use of a MSA to determine if there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Mr. Nelson, when asked whether an applicant could determine bed need based upon the character of a part of Orange County replied: There's nothing to preclude an Applicant from doing that, from carving out what I would call an Applicant's service area, running their own calculations of bed need, and doing whatever they feel they want to do in that regard. And we're not ,precluded from looking at it, either. But our position is that that has no official basis in determinations of bed need. We do look at those subdistricts but not to determine bed need. We look at them to get a better understanding of an application, because we get a sense, from looking at the unique service areas, what they' re trying to accomplish. That would be number one. Number two, and from having worked on the private side, I know one of the reasons why this is done, this is an attempt to define a market share or market area and a percent of all the considerations of what the existing hospitals that are already in the area have in the way of markets and market shares, and so on. So on the second hand, looking at the subdistricts is very important, from the standpoint of helping us to assess the financial feasibility of these proposals, which is another criterion, of course, altogether, specifically in the longer term. Because, you know, you have to know who is getting patients from where in order to be able to fully understand that. And I think the third way in which these subdistricts, these Applicants -- pardon the expression, subdistricts, that's not what these things are -- the Applicant's medical services areas are useful is in those cases where we may have a need helping us to decide where, within, let's say a subdistrict that need should be met. For example, let's suppose in this case, we were showning a need of sufficient magnitude to approve a hospital. But instead of having two applications within a few miles of each other, we had one for east Orange County, and one in west Orange County, and portions of other counties, each of which had carved out their own service area, then it would be very important for us, in that case, to look at these things very carefully, to consider them to help us determine which location was preferable. But in terms of calculating bed need from the Department's perspective, we don't put any stock in those whatsoever from that perspective. ,Emphasis added. Based upon the above testimony, it is clear that MSAs may be looked at if an applicant uses one in order to provide a better understanding of the applicant's proposal, to assess financial feasibility and, where there is an established need for acute care beds, to decide where in the subdistrict the need is the greatest. MSAs are clearly not relied upon to determine the initial question of whether there is a need for acute care beds. To determine acute care bed need based upon a MSA without considering `the' entire subdistrict of Orange County is not appropriate. The Department, as the statute and rules require, determines need at the district level and allocates the district bed need to the subdistricts. In fact, the Department has ruled that it is improper to divide a district into subdistricts smaller than those designated by a local health council for purposes of determining need as pointed out by Winter Park in its proposed recommended order. Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1091A (1983). For purposes of determining whether there is a need for additional acute care hospital beds in Orange County, Mr. Richardson's testimony is of very little value. STATUTORY CRITERIA. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that a certificate of need may be issued when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 38l.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), demonstrate need. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that there is an accessibility problem in Orange County which demonstrates acute care bed need under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The facts do not support such a conclusion as discussed, supra. This section of the Recommended Order contains findings of fact with regard to the other criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d) Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Consistency with the State and Local Health Plan: Section 381.494(6(c)1, Florida Statutes. The applications of the Petitioners are only partly consistent with the State Health Plan and the Council's Local Health Plan. The Council's Local Health Plan establishes the following occupancy levels for acute care beds which should be met before new acute care beds are approved: TYPE OF BEDS OCCUPANCY LEVEL Medical - Surgical 80% Obstetrical 75% As already discussed, occupancy levels for acute care beds in District 7, and in Orange and Seminole Counties were below 70 percent in 1984. The declining utilization of acute care beds will continue for the next 2 to 4 years and therefore it does not appear that the occupancy level goals in the Local Health Plan will be met by either applicant. These occupancy level goals are intended to be used as checks on the bed need methodologies. The importance of existing occupancy levels in determining whether to add additional acute care beds to a district is recognized in Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The Petitioners have projected that they will achieve an occupancy rate of 45-50 percent after one year of operation. South Seminole Community Hospital, which was opened in May of 1984 in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, achieved only a 27 percent occupancy rate after 8 months of operation. In light of the fact that South Seminole Community Hospital is located in Longwood, it is doubtful the Petitioners will achieve their projected occupancy rate. The Petitioners have projected that their proposed hospitals will achieve an 80 percent occupancy rate, which is an optimal occupancy rate. Their projections, based upon the findings of fact as to acute care bed need in Orange County and current occupancy levels, are highly unlikely to be reached. Especially in light of the fact that the average occupancy rate in Orange County was only 60.80 percent in 1984. The proposals are also inconsistent with the Local Health Plan goal that a proposal be consistent with the state's acute care bed need methodology. Based upon an application of the Formula, using current data, District 7 and Orange County will have an excess of acute care beds in 1990. Winter Park's proposal is consistent with several other portions of the Local Health Plan. Winter Park's facility will have an active outpatient program, its beds can be available within 24 hours and it will meet several priorities under the Local Health Plan such as being accredited and licensed, and being willing to serve indigents and other patients without regard to payment source. AMI's proposal also meets some of these goals. The Local Health Plan also contains a provision to the effect that "needed" beds should be approved at existing hospitals unless the addition of a new hospital would substantially improve access by at least 15 minutes for 25,000 or more residents. Winter Park has suggested a finding of fact that this provision has been met. If there was a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County such a finding would be appropriate. There is, however, clearly no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. This portion of the Local Health Plan therefore does not apply. Finally, the Local Health Plan provides that applicants should be able to document community and provider support for their proposals. Community support for the proposals has been demonstrated. Provider support, however, has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is opposition from some providers to the proposed new hospitals, i.e., Florida Hospital and OGH. The proposals are also partially consistent with the State's health plan. The evidence does not clearly establish, however, that the proposals are totally consistent with the goals of the State health plan. Mr. Talbert did testify that Winter Park's proposal is consistent with the goals of the State health plan. It was not clear, however, whether all of the goals were met. Also, Mr. Talbert's testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in this proceeding in some respects. For example, Mr. Talbert testified that one goal of the State health plan is to provide adequate access to acute care resources. The evidence clearly shows that adequate access is already available in Orange County. To the extent it can be inferred that Mr. Talbert's testimony also applies to AMI's proposal, the same problems exist. The evidence does not support a finding that AMI's proposal is totally consistent with the State health plan. Based upon the foregoing, it does not appear that either proposal is totally consistent with the Local Health Plan or the State health plan. The Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization and Adequacy of Like and Existing Health Care Services in the Service District; Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires that the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district be considered. The service district for this purpose is District 7. The designation of subdistricts in District 7 is specifically for purposes of allocating district bed need to the subdistricts. The parties, to the extent they addressed this criterion, presented evidence primarily for Orange County only, however. The availability, accessibility and extent of utilization of like and existing acute care hospitals in Orange County has been discussed and findings of fact with regard thereto have been made, supra. To summarize, like and existing services in Orange County are available and accessible and are underutilized. The Petitioners have not shown that like an existing services in District 7 do not provide quality of care or that they are not efficient, appropriate or adequate. Winter Park has argued that like and existing services are not accessible. The evidence does not support such a finding of fact. AMI has argued that there are no like and existing services accessible in the MSAs. That is not the test. The determination to made under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), is whether there are like and existing services in the service district. The service district in these cases is all of District 7, not the MSAs. There are currently seven acute care hospitals in Orange County: Florida Hospital, OGH, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Brookwood Hospital, Humana Lucerne, Winter Park Hospital and West Orange Memorial Hospital. Additionally, Orlando Regional Medical Center - Sand Lake is expected to be opened before 1990. These district. The evidence does not support a finding that some or all of these facilities or others in District 7 are not available, providing quality of care, efficient, appropriate, accessible, over utilized or adequate. AMI and OGH spent an inordinate amount of time and effort presenting evidence on the issue of whether OGH is a like and existing service. The evidence supports a finding that OGH is a like and existing service. Even if OGH was not a like and existing service, such a conclusion would only be relevant if it were concluded that like and existing services must exist within the boundaries of the MSAs or that OGH was the only accessible acute care hospital to the residents of the MSAs. As stated, supra, the pertinent area is not the MSA but District 7 and there are clearly other acute care hospitals in District 7 and some of those hospitals are accessible. If Orange County alone is the appropriate service area for purposes of applying this criterion, the evidence clearly proves that the Petitioners do not meet the criterion. The evidence proves that there are available, quality, appropriate, efficient and adequate like and existing health care services in Orange County and District 7. The Ability of the Applicants to Provide Quality of Care; Section 381.494(6)(c)3. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion has been meet. 113.. The Availability and Adequacy of Other Health Care Facilities and Services in the Service District which may Serve as Alternatives: Section 381.494(6)(c)4, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). There are clearly other health care facilities in Orange County providing like and existing services. The evidence does not, however, establish that there are other health care facilities and services in Orange County which are alternatives to a 100 bed acute care hospital. Transferring beds from existing facilities has been suggested as an alternative to the proposed new hospitals. This suggested "alternative" could be achieved as easily by approving a new hospital and closing some existing beds. The cost would be essentially the some. Transferring beds is not an alternative. Use of existing beds which are not being occupied is not a viable alternative either, as suggested by OGH in its proposed findings of fact. Probable Economies and Improvements in Service that may be Derived from Operation of Joint, Cooperative or Shared Health Care Resources; Section 381.494(6)(c)5, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). AMI's proposed facility may eventually share some services with Brookwood Community Hospital in the area of administrative management. Brookwood Community Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Brookwood") is a 157 bed general acute care hospital owned and operated by a limited partnership. The general partner and owner of 82.5 percent of the partnership is Brookwood Medical Center of Orlando, Inc., which in turn is owned by AMI. AMI presented its proposal assuming that there would not be any shared services with Brookwood. Through AMI, UCH, Inc., can receive price discounts for its purchases, typically 15 percent to 20 percent lower than the lowest price available in the market generally. UCH, Inc., will also be able to participate in Brookwood's preferred provider organization agreement. This could result in enhanced utilization of UCH, Inc., which could result in decreased health care costs. Winter Park will share some resources with its new hospital. The resources to be shared include Winter Park's incinerator, CAT Scanner, cardiac catheterization ion laboratory, and certain personnel. Centralized accounting, centralized purchasing and some centralized management would also be employed. Both proposals will have joint, cooperative or shared health care resources which would result in probable economics and improvements in service. The Need in the Service District of the Applicant for Special Equipment and Services not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas; Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities: Section 81.494(6)(c) 7, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Availability of Resources; the Effects on Clinical Needs of Health Professional Training Programs in the Service District: Accessibility to Schools for Health Professionals: the Availability of Alternative Uses of Resources: Extent Accessible to All Residents; Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that Section 81.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has been met to the extent it deals with "health and management manpower and personnel only." The other factors to be considered under this criterion were not stipulated to. The first factor to be considered is the availability of resources, including physicians and funds for capital and operating expenditures. The availability of funds will be discussed, infra. As to the availability of physicians, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that physicians are available to staff either of the proposed facilities. AMI proposed a finding of fact that ", unlike WPMH, AMI demonstrated that the major medical specialty areas will be represented by various physicians who will joint the UCH medical staff." AMI did demonstrate that various medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at UCH, Inc. It is also true that Winter Park did not demonstrate that all of the medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at its proposed facility. Despite these facts, several physicians testified that they would use Winter Park's proposed facility if it were approved instead of UCH, Inc., and Mr. Willard Wisler's unrebutted testimony establishes that Winter Park would have no difficulty staffing its proposed hospital. Both Petitioners have established that physician resources are available for project accomplishment and operation. The second and third factors to be considered are the effect the projects will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in Orange County and, if available in a limited number of facilities, the extent to which services will be available to schools for health professionals in Orange County. The weight of the evidence does not establish that professional training programs are available in a limited number of facilities. In fact the evidence establishes that the University of Central Florida (hereinafter referred to as "UCF"), which is located in east Orange County, has fifty-two affiliation agreements with hospitals and other medical facilities. These affiliation agreements include agreements involving clinical training of radiology technicians at Florida Hospital and, in Brevard County, at Halifax Hospital. Approximately 32 radiology students are currently involved in hospital training programs. AMI presented evidence proving the existence of a proposed "affiliation agreement" between its proposed hospital and UCF. AMI and UCF have in fact entered into an Agreement of Intent. The Agreement of intent essentially provides, in relevant part, that AMI's proposed hospital, if approved, would provide clinical training to UCF radiology technician students. Approximately three to six UCF students per semester would receive training at the new hospital. The program with UCF will clearly have a positive effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" in Orange County. The agreement also provides for certain other benefits to UCF in the form of certain gifts. Those benefits, however, are not relevant in considering whether a certificate of need should be issued to AMI. The portion of Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), at issue in this proceeding requires only that the effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" be considered. AMI's gifts will not meet the "clinical needs" of health professional training programs. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to its gifts to UCF are unnecessary. Florida Hospital and Winter Park have proposed several findings of fact concerning AMI's motive in entering into the agreement with UCF. Those proposed findings are not supported by the evidence and are not relevant. Florida Hospital also has proposed findings of fact concerning whether a tertiary hospital would be a better facility for training, the effect of patient mix on training, the lack of any study by UCF to assess the benefits of the agreement and the fact that AMI's proposed facility will not be a teaching hospital or have full-time teachers. Those proposed findings are unnecessary. The fact is, the clinical training to be provided by AMI's facility will be a benefit to the clinical needs of health professional training programs in District 7. Because of the substantial amount of gifts to be made to UCF, which will be paid for by patients of AMI's facility, the costs of AMI's clinical program will be substantial. Winter Park is currently involved in meeting clinical needs of health professional training programs at a number of educational institutions, including UCF. Winter Park's involvement includes radiology and several other programs. Although no agreements have been entered into, programs to meet such clinical needs will be provided at Winter Park's new facility. Because Winter Park has not committed to make any gifts to educational institutions, the costs of its programs will probably be less than AMI's program. The fourth factor to be considered is the availability of alternative uses of resources for the' provision of other health services. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that there are not alternative uses of resources. The petitioners failed to present evidence sufficient to conclude that there are not alternative uses for available resources. Finally, the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district is to be considered. Both Petitioners are willing to accept all patients regardless of age, sex, race, color or national origin, and medically underserved groups. The Petitioners have met most, but not all, of the requirements of this criterion. Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility; Section 1.494(6)(c)9. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Immediate Financial Feasibility. AMI's proposed facility will be financed by a 50 percent equity contribution from AMI to UCF, Inc., and 50 percent debt financing from AMI at a maximum interest rate of 12 percent amortized over 30 years. AMI has sufficient lines of credit to cover the amount needed for debt financing. AMI also has sufficient cash and unrestricted liquid assets (almost $300,000,000.00 by the end of its 1984 fiscal year) and generates enough capital ($300,000,000.00 to $400,000,000.00 a year) to fund its equity contribution and the debt. AMI also has sufficient funds to provide working capital needs of UCF, Inc. Exactly how Winter Park's proposed facility will be financed is less clear. Both of the Petitioners have suggested that the other has not proved that it has "committed" itself to funding their respective proposals. Although the evidence does raise questions as to whether AMI or Winter Park has finally committed the total funds necessary to complete their proposals, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that both Petitioners are committed to funding their proposals. More importantly, the test is whether the Petitioners have available financing sources. University Community Hospital, et ala v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1346-A, 1360-A (1983). AMI clearly proved that its Executive Committee had approved its proposal. One of its witnesses, however, testified that the approval of capital expenditures of over $1,000,000.00 took approval of the full AMI Board of Directors. Winter Park clearly proved that its Board of Trustees had approved only $4,000,000.00 of the costs of its facility. Despite these facts, the evidence establishes that, although final approval of all the funds necessary to fund the proposals may not have been given, the funds necessary to insure the immediate, financial feasibility of both proposals are available. Where the funds will come from in Winter Park's case and the total amount of funds needed by Winter Park is far from being crystal clear. Winter Park failed to take into account several expenses it will incur, including sewer capacity reserve fees (approximately $160,500.00), telephone lease costs ($20,000.00) and possibly some interest expenses. There may also be an underestimate of the cost of debt financing, depending upon whether tax-exempt loans are available to Winter Park. The costs of sewer capacity reserve and the telephone lease can probably be covered by the contingency funds projected by Winter Park. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to equipment costs underestimates are rejected as unsupported by the weight of all of the evidence. Even with the understatement of project costs, the evidence supports a conclusion that Winter Park's proposal is immediately financial feasible. Winter Park currently has set aside "over $7,000,000.00" which can be applied to fund its proposal. (Although Winter Park has certain planned or ongoing capital improvements, the evidence does not prove that these improvements will be funded out of the funds set aside for the proposed new hospital, as suggested by AMI)'. Winter Park also has lines of credit with Barnett Bank and Sun Bank of $5,000,000.00 each. Neither line of credit has been used in the past. The Sun Bank line of credit was recently renewed and is available for one year. The Barnett Bank line of credit is also good for only one year. Both lines of credit have been renewed in the past. These lines of credit will have to be renewed before construction of Winter Park's facility begins. Winter Park presented no evidence as to whether the lines of credit would be renewed by either bank, however. Therefore, the record does not contain evidence as to whether the lines of credit will be available. Winter Park is also the sole beneficiary of the Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation set upon to receive donations for the support of Winter Park. The Foundation "would make funds available to it [Winter Parka when needed." (Although testimony concerning Winter Park's alleged ability to "request" funds from the Foundation was struck, the quoted testimony was not objected to). The Foundation currently has $2,000,000.00 which could be provided to Winter Park. Finally, Winter Park has a commitment from Barnett Bank for a loan of $9,181,648.00. The loan has been committed whether interest on the loan is tax- free or taxable to Barnett Banks. Whether the loan is tax-free will affect the immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. If the loan is not tax-free, additional interest expense will be incurred; instead of being financed at a 7.696 interest rate, Winter Park will be charged approximately 11.5 percent interest if the loan is not tax- free. If the loan is tax-free, Winter Park may have failed to take into account costs associated with obtaining tax-free financing, i.e., underwriter's fees. AMI has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning additional costs associated with whether the Barnett Bank loan is tax-free. Those findings of fact are not relevant, however, in determining immediate financial `feasibility of Winter Park's proposal. The evidence establishes that the funds available to Winter Park are sufficient to cover Winter Park's projected costs and the costs it failed to include in its proposal (including the $1,20 0,000.00 of working capital which will be needed by the and of 1988). Both proposals are financially feasible in the short-term. Long Term Financial Feasibility. The Petitioners have failed to prove that their proposals are financially feasible in the long run. The projections of the Petitioners with regard to expected gross revenue depends upon whether their utilization projections are correct. Based upon the conclusion that there is no need for the proprosed facilities it is unrealistic to expect the facilities to be financially feasible. AMI's projections as to gross revenue depend on Mr. Richardson's need analysis for AMI's MSA. As discussed, supra, Mr. Richardson's projections were based upon unrealistic occupancy rates. Winter Park's projected utilization is based upon Winter Park's historical experience with its MSA for 1983. Mr. Talbert's and Mr. John Winfrey's reliance on this data in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in Orange County is misplaced. Determining utilization of Winter Park's proposed hospital in future years based on utilization of an existing hospital in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals is very suspect. The fact that east Orange County is expected to grow in terms of population does not eliminate the concern with regard to utilization. Orange County has been growing since 1980 and before. Despite that growth, hospital utilization has declined. As to the projected expenses of the proposed hospitals which effect the financial feasibility of the proposals, it appears that AMI's projections are reasonable. A number of questions concerning Winter Park's expenses were raised, however, by the evidence. The evidence supports a finding that Winter Park has failed to take into account some expenses which will affect the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Expenses not taken into account include phone lease expenses ($15,000.00 to $20,000.00), indigent care assessments ($58,000.00 in the second year of operation) and start-up costs ($22,680.00 a year). The evidence, however, also supports a finding that Winter Park's estimate of medicare contractual allowances was $318,900.00 too high and that depreciation expense was $130,000.00 too high. These overstatements of expenses are more than sufficient to cover the understatements of expenses discussed in this paragraph. The primary problem with Winter Park's estimate of expenses is that Winter Park has projected interest expense at a tax- exempt rate of 7.6 percent. The evidence does not prove that Winter Park can, however, obtain tax-exempt financing. Winter Park only presented evidence that Barnett Bank is willing to loan funds on a tax-exempt or taxable basis. Winter Park must, however, obtain approval of its proposed tax-exempt financing from the Orange County Health Facilities Authority. See Chapter 154, Florida Statutes (1983). No evidence that such approval could be obtained was presented at the hearing. Winter has therefore failed to prove that its estimated interest expenses can be achieved. The evidence also shows that if Winter Park cannot obtain tax-exempt financing, it will have to borrow funds at an 11.5 percent interest rate. This rate of interest can be obtained, but the additional interest expense would result in a net loss for the second year of operation. Based upon the foregoing, Winter Park has failed to prove that its proposal is financially feasible in the long-term. Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that it could charge a higher rate for its services to cover understated expenses. No evidence was presented, however, that proves that Winter Park would be willing or committed to a higher charge for its services. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to expenses for utilities, food and drugs, other operating expenses, incinerator costs and equipment costs are rejected. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to the goal of Winter Park to achieve an optimum profit margin of 5 percent to 7 percent are rejected because that goal does not apply to the proposed facility. The projected profit margin of the proposed facility is only seven-tenths of one percent. AMI's proposed findings of fact as to the years projections were made for (two years instead of five), the manner of making those projections (no balance sheet, no cash flow statements and no quarterly breakdowns) and the lack of a feasibility study are not necessary. AMI's remaining proposed findings of facts concerning "soft spots" in Winter Park's projections are also rejected. Special Needs and Circumstances of Health Maintenance Organizations; Section 381.494(6)(c)10, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Needs and Circumstances of Entities which Provide Services or Resources to Individuals not Residing in the Service District or Adjacent Service Districts; Section 381.494(6)(c)11, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Probable Impact of the Proposal on the Costs of Providing Health Services; Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The weight of the evidence clearly supports a conclusion that if either of the proposed hospitals is approved, the probable impact on the costs of providing health services would be negative. The only real question raised by the evidence is the degree of the negative impact. It has already been found that there will be an excess of beds in Orange County in 1990 and that utilization rates are decreasing and will continue to do so. To add 100 acute care beds to an already over-bedded subdistrict can only further add to the number of excessive beds. Patients who would occupy 100 new acute care beds would have access to other hospitals in Orange County if a new hospital is not approved. If it is assumed that patients could be attracted to a new hospital in the MSA's it necessarily follows that those patients will not use an existing, already underutilized, hospital in Orange County, Seminole County or the rest of District 7. Additionally, the evidence clearly shows that some patients who currently use existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals would be attracted to a new hospital in the MSAs. AMI has suggested that such a loss of patients would be "minimal." Minimal or not, the loss of any number of patients would result in a loss of patient days and revenue to existing hospitals which are on average already underutilized. If patients are lost by existing hospitals, the ability to serve indigents could be adversely affected. The projected population growth for the MSA's does not solve the problem either. Orange County has been experiencing population growth during the 1980's, as well as prior to 1980. Despite this population growth, utilization rates have been decreasing. Even Mr. Richardson, AMI's expert health planner, admitted there would be an impact on existing hospitals. Mr. Richardson indicated that there would a "1.5 percent occupancy impact on the system" by 1990 based upon Mr. Margolis' analysis. Mr. Richardson indicated that such an impact would be "minimal." Whether a 1.5 percent impact is minimal is not the issue. The issue is what effect such an impact would have. The weight of the evidence clearly supports the finding that the impact would be negative and the citizens of Orange County would suffer the consequences of that "minimal" impact. Florida Hospital's expert health planner, Mr. Margolis, was the most credible witness with regard to this criterion. His testimony proves that Florida Hospital and OGH could lose 5,400 to 6,000 patient days if a new 100 acute care hospital is approved. How much the dollar loss would be as a result of such a decrease in patient days is not clear. There was testimony that OGH could lose $1,000,000.00 to $3,500,000.00 in gross revenue. AMI has again suggested that the loss in patient days and revenue to OGH would be minimal and that OGH's testimony as to the amount of loss was misleading. Mr. Patrick Deegan, who testified as an expert in finance for OGH, did fail to take into account any reduction in expenses which might be associated with a loss in revenue and also failed to take into account increases in revenue as a result of growth. Although these factors could influence the amount of projected losses in revenue, the fact remains that a new acute care hospital could and probably would have a negative impact on OGH. AMI has also suggested that OGH could and should reduce its staff. This suggestion is based upon a comparison of OGH's staffing patterns and UCH Inc's proposed staffing. The record does not support AMI's proposed findings of fact. The record does not prove that UCH, Inc's, proposed staff will be at a more appropriate staffing level. Nor does the record establish that a reduction in staff at OGH would be detrimental, as suggested by OGH. As to Florida Hospital, AMI also suggests that any impact to its campuses would be minimal, if any. It is true that there probably would be no impact on Florida Hospital's Apopka campus. Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, however, gets 20 percent of its admission from the MSAs and its Altamonte Springs campus gets 3 percent of its admissions from the MSAs, as AMI points out in its proposed findings of fact. If any of those patients utilize a new hospital in the MSAs, Florida Hospital will lose patients and will be adversely affected. AMI suggested several findings of fact with regard to the financial well-being of Florida Hospital, the addition of beds at its Altamonte Springs and Orlando campuses and its motives in intervening in these cases. These proposed facts do not support a finding that Florida Hospital would not be negatively affected by the opening of a new 100 acute care bed hospital in Orange County. Finally, Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that a new Winter Park hospital in the MSAs will foster competition and thereby lower costs in Orange County for hospital services. The record does not support these proposed findings of fact in light of the excess of beds in District 7 and the underutilization of existing beds. Based upon the foregoing, Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has not been met by the Petitioners' proposals. Costs and Methods of Construction; Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Petitioners only partially proved that Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will be met. This section requires proof as to the costs and methods of construction, including methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction. The Petitioners only proved that the costs of construction would be reasonable. AMI's proposed facility will have 99,000 square feet. The total cost of construction will be $10,095,000.00 including $650,000.00 for site preparation, $8,161,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $406,000.00 for contingencies and $878,000.00 for inflation. Architectural and engineering fees will cost an additional $566,700.00. AMI's costs of construction do not include the $236,800.00 cost of reserving sewage capacity or the costs of obtaining appropriate rezoning of its property. These costs will add to the total cost of construction and the total cost of the proposal. AMI's contingency funds are sufficient to cover these amounts. AMI's additional findings of fact concerning construction costs are cumulative or unnecessary for purposes of determining if this criterion has been met. Winter Parks's proposed facility will have 98,763 square feet. Total cost of construction projected by Winter Park is $10,415,000.00, consisting of $375,000.00 for site preparation, $9,000,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $468,700.00 for contingencies and $552,200.00 for inflation. Winter Park's projections do not include the costs of reserving sewage capacity which will add approximately $150,000.00 in costs. This additional amount can be covered by the contingency amount. Although the evidence was contradictory, Winter Park did not inadvertently leave out the cost of an incinerator--there will be no incinerator at the new hospital. Although the Petitioners presented testimony to the effect that their projected costs of construction are reasonable, no consideration was given to whether the proposed facilities would be developments of regional impact (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (1983), and the costs associated with such a determination. The evidence supports conclusion that there will be some costs associated with the determination of whether the proposals are DRIs. The additional cost, however, does not appear to be significant. The Petitioners have failed to prove that the methods of construction are reasonable. They have also failed to prove that the provision of energy will be reasonable or that there are not alternative, less costly, or more efficient methods of construction available. Section 381.494(6)(d). Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In addition to considering the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), Section 381.494(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires findings of fact in cases of capital expenditure proposals for new health services to inpatients as follows: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. The existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the case of a proposal for the addition of beds for the provision of skilled nursing or intermediate care services, that the addition will be consistent with the plans of other agencies of the state responsible for the provision and financing of long-term care, including home health services. The facts concerning the first three items quoted are favorable to the Petitioners. The last one does not apply. The fourth item has not been proved to be true in this case. Summary. In summary, the evidence proves that an application of the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not demonstrate the need for either of the proposed facilities. The Petitioners have only proved that they can provide quality of care, that there are not alternatives to their proposals, that they will have shared resources, that personnel are available, that they have the capital to create the facilities, that they will improve the clinical needs of health professional training programs, and that their proposals are `financially feasible in the short-run. The Petitioners, however, have failed to prove any need for the facilities. Their proposals are not consistent with the local health plan or the State health plan. There are sufficient, underutilized existing hospitals to meet any need for hospital care and they will be adversely affected by the proposed facilities. The proposed facilities are not financially feasible in the long run. THE NEED FOR A CAT SCANNER AMI is also seeking a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner in this proceeding. The determination of whether such a certificate of need should be issued is governed by Section 10-5.11(13), F.A.C. In order to qualify for CAT Scanner, AMI must first obtain approval of its proposed hospital. Because it has been concluded that a certificate of need for a new hospital should not be granted, AMI should not be granted a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner; it will not qualify under Section 10- 5.11(13), F.A.C. In an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made as to whether a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should be issued if AMI's application for a certificate of need for an acute care hospital is approved by the Department. Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C., provides that a favorable determination will not be given to applicants failing to meet the standards and criteria of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)1-10, F.A.C. The evidence clearly establishes that AMI's CAT Scanner application meets the standards of Sections 10- 5.11(13)(b) 1-3 and 7-9, F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)4, F.A.C., does not apply. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)5, F.A.C., requires that an applicant document that there is a need for at least 1,800 scans to be accomplished in the first year of operation and at least 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Mr. Richardson testified that this standard is intended to apply to existing providers and that for a new hospital the need should apply to a five year horizon (1990 in this case). Mr. Richardson indicated that in 1990, this standard can be met. The language of Section 10-5.11(13(b)5, is clear; there must be a need documented for the first year of operation and each year thereafter. In this case, the first year of operation will be 1987. AMI has not documented that there is a need for 1800 scans in 1987 or 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C., requires that the applicant document that the number of scans per existing scanner exceeded 2,400 during the "preceding 12 months." The evidence establishes that during the 12 months preceding the hearing all of the fixed CAT Scanners located at hospitals except two were being used for more than 2,400 scans. Again, Mr. Richardson indicated that this standard should be applied to the 12 months preceding 1990. That is not what the rule specifies. The standard applies to the 12 months preceding the hearing. The two units that have not been used for 2,400 scans just started operation, however. Because the rule requires that in the first year of operation only 1,800 scans need to be performed, those units should not be considered in determining if AMI meets this standard. Therefore, AMI meets the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C. The last standard, Section 10-5.11(13)(b)10, F.A.C., provides that extenuating circumstances pertaining to health care quality or access problems, improved cost benefit consideration or research needs may be considered. The facts do not support a finding that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. The facts do prove that any hospital such as the AMI proposed hospital should have access to a CAT Scanner. This need, however, can be met by a mobile CAT Scanner or by transferring patients to a facility with a CAT Scanner, although the latter alternative is less desirable. The evidence clearly proves that there is not access problem with regard to obtaining the services of a CAT Scanner. AMI has not met the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C. Taking into account the factors to be considered under Section 10-5.11(13)(a)1- 8, F.A.C., also supports a finding that a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should not be issued to AMI even if there is a need for its proposed hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the certificate of need applications for a 100-bed acute care hospital and CAT Scanner filed by AMI, case number 84-1819, be denied. It is further DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Baggett, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Von Eckhardt, Esquire American Medical International, Inc. 414 Camden Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. P. "Rusty" Carolan, III, Esquire WINDERWEEDLE, HAINES, WARD & WOODMAN, P.A. P.O. Box 880 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0880 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. G. "Dan" Boone, Esquire Stephen K. Boone, Esquire E.G. BOONE, P.A. P.O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Brain D. Stokes, Esquire MATEER & HARBERT, P.A. 100 East Robinson Street P.O. Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 LIST OF WITNESSES AMI NAME EXPERTISE Jim Palmer Phillip L. Coppage Hospital administration including staffing. Thomas C. Wohlford Patient group and insurance programs in the health care industry. J.D. Garland Health care facilities, including hospital construction management and budgeting and cost estimating. Manuel Viamonte, M.D. Radiology. Dick Chadbourne Manpower staffing requirements for health care facilities. Jan Stirrat Health care facility equipment planning and equipment cost budgeting. Preston Thompson Physician relations and recruiting. Joseph Akerman, M.D. Peter Hiribarnc, M.D. Louis Trefonas, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of sponsored research projects at UCF. Thomas S. Mendenhall, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of health education and affiliation programs. Alan Denner, M.D. Louis C. Murray, M.D. Joseph Sandberg, M.D. Myles Douglas, M.D. Robert D. Fennell Corporate health facilities planning, processing, implementation and development. Manuel J. Coto, M.D. Jerold J. Faden, M.D. Zivko Z. Gajk, M.D. Don Steigman Hospital operations and administration. William A. Tipton Traffic and transportation. Neal B. Hiler Civil engineering and property site analysis. Trevor Colbourn Ben E. Whisenant Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D. Demographics and socioeconomic forecasting. Nilo Regis, M.D. Richard Pajot Mark Richardson Health planning. Richard Altman Hospital management engineering. Walter Wozniak Armond Balsano Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis and third- party reimbursements. Rick Knapp Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis, third- party reimbursement and rate-setting for health care facilities. Richard Anderson Edward E. Weller Real estate appraisal. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Van Talbert Health care planning. Margo Kelly Financial management, analysis and feasibility. WINTER PARK NAME EXPERTISE Katherine J. Brown Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board procedures; hospital costs and charges, data gathering and review; and hospital costs and charges comparisons. Karl Schramm, Ph.D. Hospital cost and charges and comparisons thereof and health care financing, including the impact upon the health care consumer. Willard Wisler Hospital administration including staffing and operating hospitals. John H. Roger Construction design and costs, including site preparation, and analysis thereof, in central Florida; including health care facilities construction. R. Sans Lassiter Traffic engineering, travel times and access in central Florida. Richard Anderson Sarah Mobley Equipment and cost of equipment. William J. Serow, Ph.D. Demographics. Van Talbert Health care planning. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Robert C. Liden Investment banking, including tax-exempt financing of health care facilities. Lewis A. Siefert Hospital accounting and Medicare Reimbursement. FLORIDA HOSPITAL NAME EXPERTISE Steven Windham Health planning. W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. Ronald J. Skantz Radiology training and management. Sven Kansman Traffic engineering and travel time studies. John Crissey Stan Smith, Ph.D. Demographics. Gabriel Mayer, M.D. Physician. Larry Margolis Health care planning, hospital administration, facility planning, HMO's and PPO's. Scott Allen Miller Health care accounting and financial feasibility. OGH NAME EXPERTISE Patrick J. Carson, D.O. Medical emergencies and operation of an emergency room. Tracey Watson Michael Sherry B. Jean Martell Walter J. Wozniak Lawrence Kramer, O.D. Family practice. Patrick Deegan Accounting, hospital finance and budgeting. Andrea Walsh DEPARTMENT NAME EXPERTISE W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. PUBLIC WITNESSES Mike Baumann Bob Mandell Luddy Goetz Martin Goodman Yvonne Opfell Martin Lebnick
Findings Of Fact Procedural History On August 15, 1983, the Manatee Mental Health Center, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Crisis Center applied to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a certificate of need number 2681 to operate 42 short term psychiatric hospital beds and 12 short term substance abuse hospital beds. The application was denied in free form action by SIRS on January 30, 1984, and on February 23, 1984, MMHC timely requested a formal administrative hearing. On April 16, 1984, Charter Medical-Southeast, Inc., d/b/a Charter Haven Hospital petitioned to intervene in this case. The petition was granted May 7, 1984. On October 17, 1985, Manatee Memorial Hospital petitioned to intervene. The petition was granted December 5, 1985. On March 28, 1986, Charter Medical- Southeast, Inc., d/b/a Charter Hospital of Tampa Bay petitioned to intervene, and the petition was granted by order dated April 11, 1986. On March 18, 1986, MMH moved to dismiss Charter Haven as a party. On April 2, 1986 and April 16, 1986, Charter Haven filed amended petitions to intervene. The amended petitions sought comparative review as well, and consolidation. On May 5, 1986, the final hearing in this case commenced. The first portion of the hearing was directed to the issue of Charter Haven's petition to intervene and to consolidate for purposes of comparative review. On May 7, 1986, the motions of MMHC and MMH to dismiss Charter Haven granted, and this was confirmed by findings of fact and conclusions of law entered in an order dated May 14, 1986. The final hearing was continued to July 7, 1986. All portions of the order of May 14, 1986, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law, are herein by reference, and a copy of that order is attached to this recommended order as Appendix B. Additionally, all testimony and evidence received since the commencement of the final hearing of May 5, 1986, are a part of the record in this case. Description of MMHC The Petitioner, MMHC, is a private not-for-profit corporation which contracts with HRS to provide community mental health services pursuant toChapter 394, Florida Statutes. As a community mental health facility, it also provides alcohol programs pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and drug abuse treatment programs pursuant to Chapter 396, Florida Statutes. I-2, 47, 51. As a community mental health center, MMHC is required to provide and does provide a wide variety of inpatient and outpatient services dealing with mental health and substance abuse. Among the services provided by MMHC are outpatient services; inpatient services; residential services; case management; suicide crisis counseling; outpatient programs for chronically mentally ill adults, elderly persons, and children and adolescents; programs for the moderately mentally ill and institutionally dysfunctional persons; outpatient chemical dependency services; employee assistance programs; crisis stabilization inpatient services; detoxification services; and 28-day substance abuse inpatient services. I-2, 43-44. MMHC is required by contract with SIRS, generally speaking, to provide all of these services if not by name, then by subject. I-2, 51. The primary service area of MMHC is Manatee County. I-2, 57. The primary source of funds to MMHC comes from the state, either as state money or federal money allocated by the state, but Manatee County provides some matching money. I-2, 52- 53. Additionally, MMHC receives some money from payment of charges by patients themselves. I-2, 53-55. As a community mental health center, MMHC has the responsibility to tailor its services to serve the middle and lower socioeconomic populations in Manatee County. I-2, 54-57. It is not usual for MMHC to serve patients from upper management or professional persons, or persons other than those in the middle and lower socioeconomic classes. I-2, 83. It is the mission of MMHC to insure that its services are financially accessible to everyone in the community. Id. MMHC is responsible to provide financially accessible services to the "medically underserved" which includes two groups: the "financially indigent" who meet federal poverty guidelines, and the "medically indigent" who do not meet federal poverty guidelines, but who do not have insurance or enough income to pay for health care. I-2, 56-57. The "medically indigent" also includes in concept those persons with insurance who cannot pay the co-payment or deductible. The financially indigent are eligible for 100 percent free care supported by Baker Act and Myers Act funds. MMHC has facilities at ten different sites in Manatee County. I-2, 44. The largest is Glen Oaks, which houses a 12-bed psychiatric crisis stabilization unit (CSU), a 12 bed substance abuse "28-day" unit, and a 12-bed alcohol detoxification unit. I-2, 44, 46. Glen Oaks also currently rents 18 beds that are unfunded and that have been classified as "minimum residential" to satisfy state requirements. I-2, 46, 11-2, 83. Glen Oaks is located just outside Bradenton on the east side, I-2, 50, and is relatively close to MMH. The 12 CSU beds are licensed under Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, and are funded under the Baker Act to provide psychiatric care for the financially indigent only. I-2, 55. The funding under the Baker Act is by the state, with matching county funds, rather than patient fees. I-2, 46. The 12-bed detoxification and 12-bed substance abuse units are operated by contract with HRS under Chapter 396, Florida Statutes, and receive Myers Act state funds matched with county funds. I-2, 51-2, 60. Both units also appear to receive a small amount of revenue from patient fees. I-2, 55. Substantially all of the persons who use the detoxification beds are financially indigent. Id. These 18 "minimum residential" beds were rented as a means to generate enough revenues to cover overhead expenses. I-2, 48. These beds are not considered by MMHC to be a part of the treatment program of Glen Oaks because no services are brought to these persons at the Glen Oaks facility. I-2, 48, 11-2, Persons who rent these beds for $400 to $800 per month are all clients of MMHC who are involved in outpatient programs, primarily the chemical dependency program. I-2, 47-48. The only services provided for the persons renting these beds are room and board. II-2, 63. Medications are controlled by the nursing staff only as a precaution with respect to patients in the other 36 inpatient beds. Id., II-2, 85. The classification of these 18 beds as "minimum residential" is to meet HRS regulations; HRS is aware of this classification and concurs in it. II-2, 83. The building at Glen Oaks was designed for acute inpatient beds, and the 18 minimal residential beds are not suitable for that design and intended purpose. II-2, 86. Under Chapter 394, Florida Statutes, MMHC is designated as a Baker Act public receiving facility for screening, evaluation, and treatment of psychiatric emergencies. I-2, 59. This program operates in a specially provided space at the Glen Oaks facility. I-2, 65. Law officers often bring in such emergency patients. I-2, 66. MMHC has five part-time physicians (four psychiatrists and one internist) working in various programs. I-2, 60-61. There is also one full- time psychiatrist who is the medical director. V-2, 4. These physicians provide psychiatric evaluations, admission and treatment in the inpatient program, chemotherapy in the outpatient programs, consultation to the clinical staff, training, and participate in quality assurance. I-2, 61. The medical director and two psychiatrists work in the inpatient program and the other two psychiatrists work in the outpatient programs. II-2, 13-14. Admissions to the 36 beds currently at Glen Oaks come from either the outpatient programs of MMHC or from emergency screening described above. I-2, 61-62. Thus, generally speaking, admissions to MMHC inpatient beds do not come from physicians in private practice. Hospitals, including MMH, receive admissions from physicians in private practice, from emergency room visits, and (in the case of MMH) from referrals from MMHC. I-2, 62-63, 58, 60. MMHC uses non-physician clinicians to recommend admissions initially. Admissions are then made by physicians after examination and evaluation. Id. Currently, the 36 inpatient beds at Glen Oaks are operated much the same as licensed hospital beds providing the same services in a licensed hospital, except that revenues at MMHC do not come from patient charges but from governmental funding, and MMHC does not have an organized medical staff of physicians who are in private practice. It uses, rather, employed physicians on contract. I-2, 46. Third party payors such as Medicare and commercial insurance companies will not pay for inpatient care at Glen Oaks because it is not licensed as a hospital. I-2, 58, VI-2, 18, 31- 33. Almost all patients who come into the MMHC system and need inpatient care, but have third-party payor coverage, are referred to MMH. I-2, 58. A few patients needing inpatient substance abuse treatment who have third-party payor coverage can be treated at MMHC, but most cannot. Id. By mistake some insured patients are admitted to the CSU for psychiatric care, but treatment is then provided without expectation of reimbursement. I-2, 58. Patients with insurance or other third-party coverage will elect to go where their insurance will pay the bill, VI-2, 40, assuming competence to make the choice. The ability of MMHC to provide indigent care is becoming more difficult due to inflation and current levels of governmental funding. I-2, 53- 54, 125. Expenses have been increasing at about nine to ten percent a year, but public funding has been increasing at about four to five percent a year. I-2, 125. The smaller percentage of increase each year of public funding has not kept pace with the increase in workload caused by increases in population. IX- 2, 47. Moreover, public funding has typically been targeted to particular priorities rather than to general and overall operations. I-2, 125, IX-2, 47. As a consequence, the capability of MMHC to provide care to the various categories of indigent persons in Manatee County has been impaired. VI-2, 31. MMHC has in recent years been able to operate with a small net surplus of revenues over expenses. II-2, 71. The goal of MMHC is to break even or to have a small surplus. II-2, 5. Glen Oaks is currently operating in the black, VII-2, 60, but this is achieved by use of some revenues from other programs which are not dedicated funds. II-2, 72, 74. Currently at Glen Oaks, MMHC has resources to provide only chemotherapy and milieu therapy for psychiatric crisis stabilization, and does not have resources to provide individual, group, activity, or recreation therapies. I-2, 78. Involvement of the family in therapy is now not possible due to lack of resources. I-2, 99. Chemotherapy is drug therapy. Milieu therapy is the provision of a supportive, non-threatening environment. I-2, 78. The Glen Oaks facility is a replacement funded by the state for an earlier facility called Glen Ridge, a facility which provided CSU, detoxification, and 28-day substance abuse services also. II-2, 77. The funding was about $1.9 million. CT/CH Ex. 3, p. 45. The building was completed in May 1985. I-2, 63. The total cost of construction of the new facility has been $2,275,152. 1-2, 120. The Glen Oaks facility is built on land owned by Manatee County and MMHC has a 99 year lease from Manatee County. I-2, 71. The lease is dated September 1982. MMHC Ex. 2, p. 87. With respect to the building, MMHC entered into a lease with SIRS on April 24, 1986, for a term of forty years, leasing all title and interest that SIRS may claim. MMHC Ex. 3. At the time the Florida Legislature appropriated the funds for the new Glen Oaks facility, MMHC had not contemplated construction of a licensed hospital. II-2, 77. It was the understanding of the Executive Director of MMHC that the funds were appropriated to provide a new building in which to provide the services provided at Glen Ridge. II-2, 77. 22. A "clinic" generally is a treatment facility of some sort. A "hospital" is a facility licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. II-2, It was the opinion of Mr. More that a clinic is not a hospital. At the time that Chapter 82-215, Laws of Florida (1982), was enacted, appropriating funds for the new facility at Glen Ridge, MMHC did not have a "hospital" at Glen Ridge. The new facility at Glen Oaks was designed by MMHC for acute care hospital use. II-2, 86. As discussed above, MMHC applied for a certificate of need with respect to this new facility in August 1983, but has not yet received a certificate of need to operate the new facility as a licensed hospital. The Proposed Project The application of MMHC for certificate of need 2861, as amended, is to establish at Glen Oaks a specialty hospital consisting of 17 short term psychiatric hospital beds and 10 short term substance abuse hospital beds, all of which would be licensed as hospital beds pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. If the proposed certificate of need were to be issued, and the beds granted by that certificate of need were licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, MMHC proposes potential allocations of the beds. The following is a display of the current bed types, the bed types under the first option, and the bed types under the second option: Bed Type License Type Current Option A Option B CSU Chapter 394 12 15 14 Detox Chapter 396 12 10 10 Substance Abuse Chapter 396 12 2 0 Substance Abuse Chapter 395 0 10 10 Psychiatric Chapter 395 0 17 17 Minimum Residential 18 0 0 TOTALS: 54 54 51 I-2, 75-76. Under option A, the substance abuse beds would be physically separated form the psychiatric beds, but otherwise all of the beds licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, would be spread throughout the facility. I-2, 108. Under option B, a two-hour fire wall would be built to separate all licensed beds from beds not licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and substance abuse beds would continue to be separated from psychiatric beds. The separation of substance abuse beds in a wing of the building was demonstrated to the Hearing Officer on a chalk board by Mr. More. The sketch is not in evidence. Apparently the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) does not usually allow the mixing of licensed and "unlicensed" beds, and if it does not, then the Petitioner will proceed under option B. Thus, option B appears to be the most probable option. I-2, 107. If the certificate of need at issue in this case is granted, MMHC proposes to always place patients having third party payors in a bed licensed under Chapter 395 (a hospital-licensed bed) if available. Those patients who are financially indigent will be placed in the other licensed beds along with some medically indigent patients. II-2, 35. Some medically indigent patients would also be served in the hospital-licensed beds. II-2, 35, VI-2, 20-21. However, if a bed is available, no one will be denied services because of an inability to pay. II-2, 23, VI-2, 82. If the certificate of need is granted, MMHC will continue to serve Manatee County, and will continue to serve the same groups of patients in the "other licensed" psychiatric (CSU) and detoxification beds; the only change will be the addition of the hospital licensed beds, which will serve patients having third party payer resources, as well as some medically patients. I-2, 82-83. MMHC is currently serving most of financially indigent persons in Manatee County, and thus does not expect to serve any more such persons if the certificate of need is granted, but does expect to be able to provide financially indigent persons in Manatee County with better and more comprehensive services. II-2, 51. MMHC will not reduce its current role in providing Baker Act and Myers Act services at the Glen Oaks facility if the certificate of need is granted. Id., I-2, 80, 83. MMHC proposes to serve those patients having third-party payor resources who are currently being served within the MMHC system, or who may come to MMHC in the future in MMHC's role as a "public receiving facility" for emergencies. I-2, 79. Almost all of such patients now are referred to MMH, and thus MMHC proposes to serve these patients who are now being served MMH. See finding of fact 17 above. It is expected that MMHC will serve insured patients from the middle and lower socioeconomic classes. I-2, 83. These are projected to be having annual incomes of between $20,000 to $40,000 annually. II-2, 43. Over 90 percent of the families and households in Manatee County have incomes less than $35,000 annually, so the great majority of potential insured patients in Manatee County are compatible with the current socioeconomic caseload of MMHC. II-2, 43. Issuance of the proposed certificate of need to MMHC will enable MMHC to add the following services for its inpatient beds at Glen Oaks, services which currently are not provided: individual therapy, group therapy, activity therapy, an recreation therapy. II-2, 78. These services would thus be expanded for all patients, including the financially indigent and medically indigent. Enhancement of services will enable MMHC to attempt to treat more than just the acute psychiatric episode. V-2, 12. The family of the patient will be more involved, staff will have more time to try to identify the underlying cause of the psychiatric illness, where possible, and more time will be available to provide education for the patient to assist in his or her own self-care. Id. The proposal would also result in more continuous care provided by the same staff within the MMHC system for patients having third-party payor resources who currently must be referred to facilities outside of the MMHC system. I-2, 78-79. Continuity of care is an important goal of a mental health system. IX-2, 96. Having the ability to track patients, assure continuity of treatment, and assure that the patient is treated at the appropriate level of treatment is what is meant by continuity of care. Id. With a continuum of services in the chance that the patient will be neglected is lessened, the patient should be treated at the proper level without the inefficiency of having to be transferred to another system having no familiarity with the patient. IX- 2, 94-97, IV-2, 136. Community mental health centers were created in part to continuity of care to the community. IX-2, 95. Issuance of the proposed certificate of need to MMHC would improve and foster competition among short term and substance abuse providers in Manatee County in the future. Currently, there are only 25 short term psychiatric hospital beds in the counties, all at MMH, and there are no hospital licensed short term substance abuse beds. See finding of fact 41D. The charges at MMHC will be lower than charges for similar services in the area. See finding of fact 111. If the proposed certificate of need is issued, MMHC would no longer rent 18 beds in what it now calls a "minimum residential" category of beds. Minimum residential treatment beds, providing a form of halfway residential setting between inpatient care and the community, are a very important service for a community mental health center to provide. IX-2, 103-4. MMHC plans to develop some form of minimum residential beds in the future. II-2, 85. Development of this service would involve additional costs. The 18 minimum residential beds provide a valuable housing service to those persons now renting these beds, and in that way provide a valuable service to Manatee County as well. But the beds are not treatment beds, and are not part of any treatment program as such. See finding of fact 12. Persons now using the 18 beds would probably benefit from having a more structured environment, but they also probably could function adequately on their own renting housing in the community IV-2, 155-59. The evidence indicates that these persons will find housing in the community. II-2, 84. There is no persuasive evidence in the record that the 18 minimum residential beds are necessary or essential to the persons now renting them, or that it would be impossible for them to rent or find other accommodations in the community. MMHC seeks the certificate of need in this case primarily to allow it to treat patients having third party payor resources at Glen Oaks so as to generate additional revenues so that improved mental health services may be provided to the financially and medically indigent of Manatee County. With the exception of the improvements to services caused by expansion of therapies available, discussed above, there are no significant differences between the psychiatric or substance abuse treatment services that MMHC provides now to persons occupying the other licensed beds and the services that will be provided if a certificate of need is granted. VI-2, 127-28. Moreover, will not be any significant differences between the treatment services that will be provided in the hospital-licensed beds, should a certificate of need be granted, and the beds licensed under other Florida Statutes. II-2, 21, 35. The quality of care currently provided by MMHC is very good, and meets all criteria set out by HRS, but the quality of services provided by MMHC could be enhanced and improved if resources were available. II-2, 28-29, V-2, 19, 21. Patients who currently are discharged from inpatient care do not have need for more inpatient care. V-2, 21. Need For the Proposed Project The "planning horizon year" is the year in which need for short term psychiatric or substance abuse beds will be calculated pursuant to HRS rules, and is July 1988 in this case, which is five years from the date of the application. See findings of fact 41 and 42, order of May 14, 1986, Appendix B. Despite the delay in this case in coming to final hearing, a planning horizon year of 1988 is still appropriate since MMHC can begin operations rather quickly because no major construction is needed. III-2, 45-46. Following the methodology of rules 10-5.11(25)(d) and 10-5.11(27)(f), Florida Administrative Code, there is projected to be a surplus of 154 short term psychiatric hospital beds and a surplus of 68 short term substance abuse hospital beds in District VI in the horizon year, 1988. VIII-2, 49. The amended application of MMHC identifies a bed need specified in the 1983 District VI local health plan, which is MMHC Ex. 1, and does not seek to satisfy a bed need identified in any later state or local plan. See findings of fact 29 through 36, Appendix B. The Community Medical Facilities Component of the District VI Local Health Council plan was adopted on August 1, 1983. MMHC Ex. 1. In 1983, HRS District VI consisted of Hillsborough and Manatee Counties only. MMHC Ex. 1. The 1983 District VI Health Plan showed a net surplus of short term psychiatric hospital beds by 1988 of 133 and a net need of 57 short term substance abuse hospital beds by the same year. Id., p. 52-53. The Community Medical Facilities Component of the District VI Local Health Council plan designates Manatee County as a distinct planning and service area for assessing bed need for psychiatric and substance abuse services. MMHC Ex. 1, p. 53. The plan designates Manatee County as a distinct area according to the plan, most Manatee County residents are beyond 45 minutes travel time to facilities located in Tampa. Id. It also treats Manatee County as a distinct area because the county has only one existing provider of short term psychiatric beds, MMH, which had a greater than 100 percent occupancy rate in 1982. HRS officials charged with the responsibility to review and recommend approval or disapproval of applications for certificates of need have concluded that Manatee County is a proper service and planning area for calculation of need in this case. See findings of fact 20 and 22, order of May 14, 1986, Appendix B; II-1, 188-91. Short term psychiatric care is a part of a continuum of care that is aimed at deinstitutionalization. II-1, 143-44. Short term psychiatric patients have a greater need to be in touch with their local communities. Id. Having all mental health services available in the local community, rather than at greater distances away, fosters the goal of continuity of care. Manatee County is designated as a "mental health catchment area" by the National Institute of Mental Health. III-2, 55, 63-64. This designation is intended to identify needs and resources within the designated geographical area. Id. Manatee County is designated by the United States Bureau of Census as a-metropolitan statistical area. III-2, 55. Other applicants for certificates of need for short term psychiatric or substance abuse services have considered Manatee County to be the proper area for planning and determining need, notably the application of Charter Medical-Southeast, Inc., d/b/a Charter Haven Hospital for certificate of need 4294, which contains an analysis of need from Fagin Advisory Services, Inc., dated December 22, 1985, pages 3-20. MMHC Ex. 6. It is therefore reasonable to consider Manatee County as a separate service and health planning area for assessment of need for short term psychiatric and substance abuse hospital beds. HRS has not by rule adopted Manatee County as a subdistrict for determining need for short term psychiatric or substance abuse services. It has done so in this case as a matter of incipient policy and that policy has been found in this case to be reasonable. See finding of fact 38. The 1983 Local Health Council plan, using the methodology contained in the state rules applied only to Manatee County, found a gross need in Manatee County by 1988 for 65 short term inpatient psychiatric hospital beds, and 11 short term inpatient substance abuse beds. MMHC Ex. 1, p. 53. The net need is 40 short term psychiatric hospital beds and 11 short term substance abuse hospital beds. III-2, 68. The conclusion that there is a net need for short term psychiatric and substance abuse beds contained in the preceding paragraph is corroborated and supported by the following additional findings: The historical use rate for short term psychiatric beds in District VI has been 88.4 patient days per 1,000 population, and the use rate for short term substance abuse beds in District IV has been 26.5 patient days per 1,000 population. III-2, 78-80. A district rate is more reliable since it tends to average out under-utilization that may be caused by lack of beds in a particular county. Id. Applying these use rates to 1988 populations, there would be a need for 31 to 35 short term psychiatric beds and 17 short term substance abuse beds in Manatee County by 1988. Id. Manatee County currently has only .14 short term psychiatric beds per 1,000, while District VI has 47 beds per 1,000. III-2, 79. Accepting the rate of .35 beds per 1,000 as a norm, that rate having been promulgated as a need rate in rule 10-5.11(25), Florida Administrative Code, then there is a shortage of these beds in Manatee County. Manatee County has only 25 short term psychiatric hospital beds currently and those are located at MMH. Manatee County has no hospital licensed short term substance abuse beds. III-2, 69, 150. The occupancy rate for the 25 short term psychiatric beds at MMH has been consistently very high since 1980: 82.9 percent in 1980, 87.0 percent in 1981, 102.0 percent in 1982, 112.0 percent in 1984, 88.0 percent in 1985, and 97.0 percent in the first four months of 1986. III-2, 66, 70, CH/CT Ex. 8, p. 154, MMHC Ex. 1, p. 30. It is preferable that MMH operate under 75 percent occupancy. XI-2, 124. Charter Tampa's parent corporation, Charter Medical-Southeast, Inc., presented in an application for a certificate of need an analysis showing a net bed need of 63 short term psychiatric beds for Manatee County in 1990. MMHC Ex. 6, p. 17-20. The method used was essentially the same as proposed by the Petitioner, except that 1990 populations were used, and was presented by the same consulting expert who testified for Charter Tampa during the hearing. Id. MMH has applied for a net increase of 17 short term psychiatric hospital beds and 11 substance abuse beds in a comprehensive application for certificate of need in a later batch in which Charter-Medical Southeast, Inc., has two pending applications. CH/CT Ex. 1, p. 2. The services proposed by the Petitioner are thus consistent with, and would partially satisfy, the need for short term psychiatric and substance abuse inpatient hospital beds as set forth in the 1983 local plan. The 1983 state health plan is not in evidence. As will be discussed in the conclusions of law, the 1985 versions of these plans are not legally relevant to Petitioner's application in view of recent case law. Alternatives The short term psychiatric beds at MMH have been running at a very high occupancy rate for the last five years. A significant number of psychiatric patients having insurance or other third party payors are currently referred for treatment to MMH by MMHC. I-2, 58, 60. If the certificate of need sought in this case were to be granted, MMHC would retain most of these patients for treatment, and would no longer refer them to MMH. See findings of fact 27 and 17 above. However, the local health plan identifies 40 short term psychiatric beds need by 1988, and MMHC proposes to serve only 17 beds of that need, or less than 50 percent. The total need is 65 beds, and 23 beds, or 35 percent of the gross need, would be unmet by the Petitioner or anyone else. This unmet need would be available to MMH as well as to other providers, such as Charter Tampa, and constitutes a very substantial additional source of patients. It must be concluded, therefore, that although MMH will lose patients now referred by MMHC, in the long term MMH will not suffer significant reduced occupancy. Given the level of need shown, and the higher occupancy rates shown at MMH, it must further be concluded that MMH does not provide an adequate alternative in the service area to satisfy all need for short term psychiatric inpatient hospital beds. MMH does not provide any certificate of need approved hospital licensed short term substance abuse beds, and thus there are no alternatives in the service area for this service proposed by the Petitioner. The 12 CSU beds at MMHC are not an adequate alternative to the 17 short term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds sought by MMHC in this case. If they were, the occupancy levels at MMH would be substantially lower. Moreover, the 12 CSU beds are not adequate to treat patients having third party reimbursement sources. See finding of fact 17. Finally, assuming hypothetically that CSU beds should be deemed to be an adequate equivalent of hospital licensed beds, the current 12 CSU beds at MMHC only would fulfill a portion of the net need in Manatee County for 40 inpatient hospital psychiatric beds. A net residual need of 28 beds would still exist to be served by the 17 short term beds proposed by MMHC. Quality of Staff and Care The parties stipulated that there was no issue in this case concerning the quality of staff that would be used if this certificate of need were granted. I-2, 14. Moreover, the number of full time equivalent positions (FTE's) proposed is not contested either. I-2, 15. The quality of care now provided by MMHC is good, and good quality of care would be provided if the certificate of need were granted. See finding of fact 33. Indigent Services Currently, the Glen Oaks facility operates 12 CSU (psychiatric) beds, 12 detoxification beds, and 12 substance abuse beds. It also rents 18 beds which it terms "minimal residential." See findings of fact 9 through 12. If the certificate of need in this case were granted, it would continue to operate essentially the same number of beds in each category with the exception of the minimal residential beds. See finding of fact 24. The only major change to existing services would be replacement of the 18 "minimum residential" beds with 17 hospital licensed short term psychiatric inpatients beds. The 18 rented beds are not associated with inpatient programs, and are not similar to the 17 short term psychiatric hospital beds. MMHC intends to continue to serve indigent patients and to expand these services as population grows. III-2, 89. Currently, MMHC uses a sliding or discounted fee system, charging patients according to ability to pay. I-2, 54-55. If the certificate of need is granted, MMHC will collect essentially the same total minimal level of revenues from these same indigent patients. II-2, 36-37, VI-2, 19-22. Although there will be no sliding fee schedule, the result will be the same: such indigents will receive care paying the same minimal total amount. VI-2, 77, II-2, 36-38. Thus, if the certificate of need at issue in this case were granted, MMHC would not eliminate any of its current inpatient psychiatric (crisis stabilization), detoxification, or substance abuse services for indigents. These inpatient services would still be available to the same extent at minimal or no cost to such persons, except that additional and enhanced therapies and services will be made available to indigents. See finding of fact 26. Geographical Accessibility Glen Oaks will be geographically accessible to all residents of Manatee County, though it will not provide any geographic accessibility advantage different from nearby MMH. Both MMHC and MMH are well located to be near a large portion of the population of Manatee County. Short Term Financial Feasibility There are adequate resources to complete the project proposed by the Petitioner. The building was funded by the Legislature and is essentially complete. Funds exist for any necessary modifications and for all equipment. I-2, 111, 116- 117. It was stipulated that adequate and qualified staffing has been proposed and will be obtained to operate the new beds as proposed at Glen Oaks. I-2, 14-15. The project proposed by MMHC is financially feasible in the short term. Long term Financial Feasibility Long term financial feasibility involves a number of sharply disputed issues of fact. Paragraphs 51 through 112 will address these issues. Deborah J. Krueger was accepted as an expert in health care facility financial feasibility and health care financial analysis. V-2, 56. Karen Wolchuck-Sher was accepted as an expert in health planning. III-2, 48. It was Ms. Wolchuck-Sher's expert opinion that there is a need for 17 short term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds and 10 short term inpatient hospital substance abuse beds in Manatee County as proposed by the Petitioner. III-2, It was Ms. Krueger's expert opinion that the proposed project would be financially feasible in the long term. VI-2, 6. Ms. Wolchuck-Sher testified primarily concerning need. Ms. Krueger testified primarily concerning financial feasibility. The projection of expected patient days for the 17 short term psychiatric beds and 10 short term substance abuse beds was prepared by Ms. Wolchuck-Sher and used by Ms. Krueger in her financial feasibility analysis. VI-2, 69. However, to produce a projection of payor mix, Ms. Krueger had to analyze the same data relied upon by Ms. Wolchuck-Sher to determine projected patient days. VI-2, 70. Projected Patient Days Based entirely upon patients estimated to already be within the MMHC system, but who are typically referred elsewhere because they have insurance or other third party payor resources, MMHC projects that on the first day of operation of the proposed 27 hospital licensed beds, occupancy will be 64 percent or an average daily census of 17 patients. III-2, 128-29, 154. It is further projected that this occupancy level will average 70 percent in the first year of operation, ending August 31, 1988. III-2, 129, The 17 patients estimated to be available on an average daily basis from the beginning were identified as patients that currently are seen and treated in MMHC programs and who could be referred for treatment to the hospital licensed beds if the certificate of need were granted. III-2, 131. These would include people with insurance and Medicare, but not Medicaid, or those who have a physical illness requiring hospitalization. Id. The 17 patients estimated above was based upon a study conducted by staff of MMHC, which was reviewed by both Ms. Wolchuck-Sher and Ms. Krueger. See finding of fact 52. III-2, 128-29, 132. The study included discharge records of patients from July 1985 to February 1986. The discharge records were reviewed to determine whether the patient had been referred for treatment to a hospital licensed bed elsewhere. A cross check of MMH records was performed to determine if MMH actually treated the referred patient. Ms. Wolchuck-Sher did not personally count the numbers, but she personally reviewed the census sheets prepared by MMHC staff, studied the methods used to tabulate the numbers, and concluded that the methods used were reasonable. III-2, 132-36, 146. Based upon the study, an initial average daily census of 17 was projected. III-2, 136. The 17 patients on an average daily census was projected by tabulating admissions, multiplying admissions by projected average lengths of stay by program, and converting this to a monthly rate. III-2, 137, 146-47. The average length of stay was based on actual current experience at MMHC, projected increase in average length of stay when MMHC at Glen Oaks adds new forms of treatment programs, and comparisons to current average lengths of stay at the 25 short term psychiatric beds at MMH. III-2, 139. By program, the following numbers of patients and projected average lengths of stay were identified in the study relied upon by Ms. Wolchuck-Sher and Ms. Krueger: about 7 patients per month from the geriatric residential treatment services (GRTS) program with an average length of stay of 20 days, IV- 2, 115, VI-2, 65, XII-2, 29-30; about 6 patients per month from the crisis stabilization unit (CSU) with an average length of stay of 10 days, IV-2, 72, XII-2, 29-30; about 2 patients per month from the employee assistance program (EAP) with an average length of stay of 10 days, VI-2, 73, XII-2, 29 30; about 2 patients per month from outpatient programs, with an average length of stay of 10 days, although outpatient programs, excluding GRTS, show on the census sheets about 7 admissions a month, VI-2, 73-74, XII-2, 32; and an average daily census of 9 patients in the 10 substance abuse beds, with an average length of stay of days, III-2, 155, 158, 159, 161. Currently, the 12 substance abuse beds have an average 75 percent occupancy, which is an average daily census of 9 patients. III-2, 161. MMHC simply projects that these patients will fill the 10 hospital licensed beds if the certificate of need is granted. III-2, 155, 159. Mathematically, the patients identified in finding of fact 57 results in the following: Average daily Program that Average Patient census (Patient is the source Monthly length days for days divided by of the referral Admissions of stay each month 30 days in mo.) GRTS 7 20 140 4.67 CSU 6 10 60 2.00 EAP 2 10 20 0.60 Outpatient 2 10 20 0.67 Subtotal: 8.01 Substance abuse 9.00 TOTAL: 17.01 From the foregoing, the average length of stay of patients from all programs except substance abuse programs would be 14.1 days. (240 patient days divided by 17 admissions.) This is consistent with testimony that the average length of stay for "psychiatric patients overall" would be 14 days, but that CSU patients would have an average length of stay of 10 days. III-2, 154. Ms. Wolchuck-Sher's testimony on this point is not clear, but the foregoing analysis is the only one that makes sense on this record. Apparently Ms. Wolchuck-Sher did not consider the substance abuse beds when she testified as to projected average length of stay since the substance abuse beds were, in her opinion, projected to have a 21 day average length of stay, and were simply to continue the same daily census of 9 patients. III-2, 158, 161. The reason for the "overall" 14 day average length of stay is that although many of the patients referred to the short term psychiatric beds will have an average length of stay of 10 days, those who are elderly and originate from the geriatric residential treatment service program will have an average length of stay of 20 days. The numbers of potential admissions identified in paragraph 57 above are reasonable. These numbers come from actual experience of MMHC, and the methods of collecting were found to be reasonable by an expert in health planning. The numbers of potential admissions come from patients already within the MMHC system and do not depend upon referrals from private physicians. III- 2, 92-93. Thus, even if one were to assume that patients of private physicians, and such physicians themselves, would prefer not to use short term hospital services at MMHC due to its role as provider for indigents, this does not alter the projected number of admissions. MMHC currently serves about 5,000 persons annually in its many programs. I-2, 89. It also serves as a public receiving facility for emergency psychiatric cases. Id. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the existing MMHC mental health system will in fact be a source of the referrals estimated in paragraph 57 and 58 above. III-2, 82-83. Moreover, the estimated numbers of admissions are conservative in several respects. First, the outpatient programs were relied upon as a source of only 2 admissions per month, although the estimate could have run as high as 7 admissions per month. See paragraph 57. Also, the estimate does not consider potential admissions from private physicians, but the opportunity for such admissions will exist because MMHC will operate an open medical staff, and any qualified community physician may join. II-2, 7, 87-88. Undoubtedly some additional referrals would be made to MMHC because MMH is operating now at capacity and the numeric need estimates shows a need for 40 short term psychiatric beds by 1988. At an average daily census of 17, with 9 of this in substance abuse beds, MMHC is projecting that it will only attract a small portion of that need: enough to fill 8 of the 40 beds, leaving an unmet demand for 32 beds. It is not unreasonable for MMHC to project initially that it will 20 percent of the unmet need of Manatee County. The projected average length of stay of 20 days for patients in the geriatric residential treatment program is reasonable. It may be inferred that healing for the elderly may be slower, and that therefore the length of stay will be longer than for other short term psychiatric patients. IX-2, 88-89. The projected average length of stay for admissions to the 17 hospital licensed psychiatric beds from the CSU, EAP, and other outpatient programs of 10 days is reasonable. Manatee Memorial Hospital currently experiences an average length of stay in its 25 short term psychiatric beds of about 10 days, and there is no reason to believe that the same type bed at MMHC will not function the same. III-I, 148. Although the CSU at Glen Oaks currently has an average length of stay of 6.5 days, III-2, 147, this is based upon the current limited services which consists only of chemotherapy and milieu therapy (which is only a supportive, non-threatening atmosphere). I-2, 78. If the certificate of need is granted, MMHC will be able to provide more individualized therapies such as activity therapy, recreation therapy, group therapy, and individual therapy. I- 2, 78. It is reasonable to infer that provision of more staff, as will be discussed ahead, aimed at providing more individual attention, will result in longer inpatient stays, III-2, 147-148, at least until the average length of stay is similar to that currently at Manatee Memorial Hospital. The projection that there will be 9 patients on average occupying 9 of the 10 substance abuse beds each day is reasonable based upon current actual occupancy in the same beds at Glen Oaks. See finding of fact 57. This projection does not depend upon an average length of stay since the average daily census is known. However, it would appear that to the extent that Ms. Wolchuck-Sher assumed that the average length of stay in the substance abuse beds would be 21 days, III-2, 158, it appears this was too conservative. The current average length of stay in the substance abuse beds is actually 28 days. II-2, 12, V-2, 21. From findings of fact 54 through 62, it is concluded that the estimate that the proposed 17 short term psychiatric beds and 10 short term substance abuse beds will initially open with about a combined average daily census of 17 patients, or an occupancy rate of 64 percent, is reasonable and supported by the evidence. The projection that the 27 new beds would have an 80 percent occupancy rate in the second year effectively means that the 10 substance abuse beds will continue to be occupied by an average daily census of 9 patients, and that the occupancy of the 17 psychiatric beds would increase to an average daily census of 12.6 patients. (80 percent of 27 beds is a 21.6 average daily census. If 9 of these beds were occupied by substance abuse patients, the remainder of the 12.6 would be occupied by psychiatric patients.) At 64 percent occupancy, the substance abuse beds would have a daily average of 9 patients and the psychiatric beds would have a daily average of 8 patients. See finding of fact 58 above. Thus, the 80 percent occupancy projection is simply a projection that the average daily census in the 17 psychiatric beds will grow from 8 (47 percent occupancy) to 12.6 (74 percent) occupancy in two years. This is an entirely reasonable projection. In effect, it predicts that in two years, MMHC will service 12.6 beds of the 40 net short term psychiatric beds needed in Manatee County by that date. Given the fact that this leaves a shortfall of 17.4 short term psychiatric beds in Manatee County, there ought to be sufficient demand to achieve this projection. It is not unreasonable to project that at the end of two years, MMHC will capture only 31.5 percent of the projected net need for short term psychiatric beds in Manatee County. In summary, the expert opinion of Ms. Wolchuck-Sher that an 80 percent occupancy rate is a reasonable projection for the second year of operation is quite credible and is accepted. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record to believe that the 80 percent occupancy rate will not continue through the third year. Once established, the need projections (based upon a population which, on this record, cannot be concluded to be expected to diminish in 1989 or 1990) remain at least constant, and thus it is reasonable to infer that MMHC will retain and serve enough patients in the third year of operation to sustain a continued 80 percent occupancy rate The number of patient days projected in the second year for purposes of long term financial feasibility, 7905 patient days (see table 7, page 48, MMHC EX. 2) is based entirely upon the projection of 80 percent occupancy in the second year. III-2, 156. It is simply 27 beds times 80 percent times 366 (the number of days in leap year 1988). Id. Since the projection of 80 percent occupancy is reasonable, the projection of 7905 patient days in the second year is also reasonable. The reasonable nature of the projection of 7905 patient days in the second year of operation is further corroborated by the projection of patient days in the application of Charter Medical-Southeast, Inc., d/b/a Charter Haven Hospital for certificate of need 4294. MMHC Ex. 6. That application included a "bed need study" by Fagin Advisory Services, Inc., dated December 22, 1985. In that study, a net need of 63 short term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds was estimated in Manatee bounty by 1990. MMHC Ex. 6, p. 19. Further, the applicant estimated that in the 12 months from May 1987 to April 1988, its project would serve 9122 short term psychiatric hospital patient days. Id. at p. 31. This should be compared with the short term patient days contained in the estimate of 7905 patient days by MMHC, which includes short term substance abuse patient days as well. The annual short term substance abuse patient days were derived from an estimate of 9 beds occupied at all times, which would result in 9 times 366, or 3294 patient days devoted to short term substance abuse. See paragraph Thus, the MMHC projection of short term psychiatric patient days in this case is only 4611 in 1988, a number quite smaller than 9125 days estimated by Charter Medical-Southeast. Dr. Fagin, who testified for Charter Tampa, testified that he would not be surprised if there were 7905 patient days of demand in Manatee County. XI-2, 128-29. Patients having third party payor resources will to some substantial degree choose not to be served by a community mental health center like MMHC because MMHC serves a large number of indigent patients. IX-2. 102. Similarly, it is reasonable to expect that a number of private physicians in the community will continue to use MMH for inpatient mental health care, and will not be referring paying patients to MMHC. XI-2, 72-73. Nonetheless, the reasonableness of the projection of 7905 patient days is not significantly undermined by the expected reluctance and refusal of a substantial number of third party payor patients to use MMHC. There are several reasons for this conclusion in the record. First, as discussed above, the projection of 7905 patient days is not based upon referrals from private practice physicians; it is based primarily upon referrals of patients already within the MMHC system who, for one reason or another, have affirmatively chosen that system. Second, if MMHC upgrades its services by the addition of more therapies as planned, its inpatient hospital beds will be more attractive to patients. Moreover, it has a new physical facility, and thus the building itself should not be a deterrent to patients. Other mental health centers having hospital licensed inpatient short term psychiatric and substance abuse services have been able to attract a substantial number of patients having Medicare or other third party payor resources. The Brevard Mental Health Center operates a hospital with 48 hospital licensed beds, 20 of which are short term substance abuse beds and 24 of which are short term psychiatric beds. IX-2, 37-38. The Brevard Mental Health Center is a community mental health center responsible to provide community mental health services regardless of ability to pay. IX-2, 37-38. The services are generally the same type as provided by MMHC. IX-2, 37, 64-66. Approximately 41 of the 48 beds are normally occupied, and of these, about one half are normally occupied by patients having third party reimbursement or payor sources. IX-2, 44. These were more specifically distributed as follows: 15 percent of the psychiatric beds (15 percent of 28 or 4.2) were Medicare, 18 percent of the psychiatric beds (18 percent of 28 or 5) were insurance, and 80 percent of the substance abuse beds (80 percent of 20, or 16) were insurance IX- 2, 52. 53. Thus, a total of about 25 of the 48 beds were occupied by patients having third party reimbursement resources. For the past five and one-half years, the Brevard Mental Health Center has been able to achieve its budgeted goal of placing in hospital licensed beds patients having third party payor resources. IX-2, 45. There are about six other community mental health centers in Florida having hospital licensed short term psychiatric beds. VIII-2, 63. In 1984, the four community mental health centers then having hospital licensed beds were able to attract Medicare and other charged based patients. XII-2, 61. In addition to the success of other community mental health centers, Charter Tampa's own expert was of the opinion that Charter Tampa would lose from one-third to two-thirds of its current annual number of patients (14) from Manatee County if MMHC obtains a certificate of need as proposed in this case. See finding of fact 115. Obviously, then, Charter Tampa's expert was of the opinion that Manatee County patients would choose to be served by MMHC if that alternative were available to them, and would not be deterred by the fact that MMHC serves indigents. While the conclusion that Charter Tampa will lose patients has been rejected due to the large quantity of unmet need in Manatee County, Dr. Fagin's assumption that MMHC would be an attractive alternative to Charter Tampa is supported by other evidence in the record. Finally, the projections of 64 percent occupancy in the first year, and 80 percent occupancy in the second year, as discussed above, assume that MMHC will capture only a modest number of the total number of patients in 1988 in Manatee County needing short term psychiatric health care: 20 percent in the first year and 31.5 percent in the second year. See findings of fact 57, 58 and While some patients and their families may in fact be reluctant to use the services of a community mental health center, the projections of MMHC are well within any reasonable range of predicted loss of patients due to stigma associated with services to economically disadvantaged persons. Short term psychiatric patients in Manatee County have to go somewhere reasonably close by, and MMC is full. This fact alone will overcome some of the reluctance of patients or others to use MMHC. About one to two percent of all psychiatric and substance abuse patients also have a medical problem, and these patients would continue to be referred to MMH despite the existence of a mental health problem as well. V-2, 13-14. The evidence, however, is not sufficiently clear to categorically conclude that one or two percent of the persons needing inpatient psychiatric hospital care or inpatient hospital substance abuse care will also have a medical problem. The record cited above is from the testimony of Dr. Ravindrin, who thought that the percentage of "dually diagnosed" patients to be "very small," and that "it may be one or two percent of the people who might need actual medical intervention plus active Dsvchiatric treatment at that moment." Id. From this it is uncertain to what extent the percentage applies to those patients needing inpatient care, as opposed to other forms of "active psychiatric-treatment." The evidence does compel the conclusion that some small percentage of patients needing to be served in a hospital inpatient short term bed may also have need of medical treatment. However, this fact does not appear to be relevant since the projections of patient admissions were derived from studies that estimated the numbers of patients who in fact would be admitted to hospital licensed beds at Glen Oaks if a certificate of need were granted. See finding of fact 57. There is no evidence that any of these patients are expected to have a dual diagnosis, and given the nature of the purpose of the study, it would be expected that dually diagnosed patients would not have been counted. The foregoing findings of fact 34-69 concern only the 27 hospital licensed psychiatric and substance abuse beds. Under option A, see finding of fact 24, MMHC will continue to operate 15 crisis stabilization unit beds, 10 detoxification beds, and 2 substance abuse beds, and will continue to have these beds licensed pursuant to either chapter 394 or 396, Florida Statutes, as "other licensed" beds, but not hospital licensed. Under option B, which is more probable, MMHC will continue to operate 14 CSU beds and 10 detoxification beds, again as "other licensed" beds. The long term financial feasibility projections estimated that these "other licensed" beds would continue to serve the same indigent patients as currently served in the 12 CSU beds and 12 detoxification beds operated by MMHC. VI-2, 81-82. In future years, the financial feasibility projection simply assumes that the number of patient days in these "other licensed" beds will grow in proportion to the increase in population in Manatee County. Id.; III-2, 88-90. The occupancy rate generated by these estimates was 65 percent in the "other licensed" beds for both years since the population increase was quite small. III-2, 89. These projections are reasonable. Id. Projected Staffing Table 11, page 51, of the updated application for certificate of need, MMHC Ex. 2, contains the proposed staffing for the new hospital licensed beds. VI-2, 23. The parties have stipulated that the numbers of full time equivalents (FTE's) shown on Table II are adequate for the programs proposed by MMHC and the parties further stipulated that there is no dispute in the case concerning the ability of MMHC to hire and retain qualified persons to fill these positions. I-2, 12-15. MMHC currently operates with 37.7 FTE's. It proposes to add 35.2 full time equivalents if the certificate of need is granted for a total of 73.2 FTE's. Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2. Currently, MMHC operates with 0.8 FTE's for medical staff. It proposes to add 1.8 FTE's to make this 2.4 FTE's for the medical staff. If the certificate of need is granted, Dr. Ravindrin would fill one full time equivalent, and the remaining 1.4 FTE's would be provided by other physicians who currently have a relationship with MMHC. Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2; 11-2, 14-15. MMHC currently has only 4.0 FTE's for treatment staff, but proposes to add 6.0 FTE's if the certificate of need is granted. Table II, MMHC Ex. 2. These new staff positions will provide the enhanced psychiatric treatment therapies described in finding of fact 28. I-2, 99. MMHC currently has 21.1 FTE's of nursing staff, and would add 13.9 nursing FTE's if the certificate of need were granted. Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2. This would provide 0.65 nursing FTE'd per bed (35/54) compared to the existing ration of 0.59 (21.1/36). Id. II-2, 52. The administrative staff is proposed to increase from the current 2.0 FTE's to 4.0 FTE's, and this will enable MMHC at Glen Oaks to handle the reporting requirements and other administrative work associated with the facility. 1-2, 99; Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2. The current level for support staff (kitchen, janitorial, and so forth) is 9.8 FTE's and would be increased to 21.0 FTE's. Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2; II-2, 17, 53. The current level of consultant staff (pharmacy and dietary) is 0.3 FTE's and this would increase to a total of 0.6 FTE's if the certificate of need were granted; Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2 is in error on this point. I-97. Projected Revenues Long term financial feasibility is determined by comparing projected revenues with projected costs. MMHC Ex. 2, Appendix A. Projected revenues are determined by projected patient days (utilization forecasts) and a projected average charge per patient day. VI-2, 12-13. MMHC projected an average gross charge per patient day based upon the kind of operating margin MMHC wanted to have, the expected payor mix, and consideration of the charges of other facilities. VI-2, 13. The charges of all of the community mental health centers and all of the free standing psychiatric facilities in Florida as reported in the 1984 Hospital Cost Containment Board Report, and the charges of Charter Tampa and MMHC for 1986 were reviewed by MMHC's expert in determining the proposed average charge for the hospital licensed beds. VI-2, 14. The average daily charge proposed by MMHC is $295 per day in the first year of operation and $313 per day in the second year of operation. VI-2 37-38. If the certificate of need is granted, MMHC will hire a consultant to assist it in preparing a schedule of specific fees by service so as to achieve the average cost per day projected to be both competitive and to cover expenses. I-2, 126; VI-2, 53. The technique of projecting an average charge per patient day is commonly used by experts to forecast revenues and to establish actual charges, and is also commonly used in certificate of need proceedings, and is reasonable. VI-2, 53, 41; VIII-2, 9-14. Analysis of projected revenues must proceed by considering first the 27 inpatient hospital beds that are the subject of this application for certificate of need, the hospital licensed beds, and then considering the remaining beds to as "unlicensed" beds in the forecast statement of revenue and expense, Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. In the second year of operation, which is the most relevant for consideration of financial feasibility, the projected 7905 patient days will generate $2,474,265 in gross revenue at an average daily charge of $313. Table 7, p. 48, MMHC Ex. 2; VI-2, 12-14, 38-39. The mix of patients in the 27 hospital licensed beds in the second year is estimated to be 29.6 percent Medicare, 48.2 percent insurance, and 22.2 percent private pay. Table 7, p. 48, MMHC Ex. 2. The estimate of 29.6 percent Medicare is based upon the current 27 percent of admissions that currently are GRTS patients plus the increasing trend in Medicare utilization. VI-2, 66-67. From the study that identified the types of patients who were within the existing MMHC system and were candidates for referral to the hospital licensed beds it was estimated that about 30 percent of the total number of such persons were patients having insurance; it was further projected that once the enhanced therapies are added to MMHC, this percentage would increase to 48.2 percent. VI-2, 71-75. The remainder of the payor mix would be private pay patients, or 22.2 percent of the patient days. Table 7, p. 48, MMHC Ex. 2; VII-2. 72. The estimated mix of patient days for the 27 hospital licensed beds is reasonable. V1-2, 40. It is projected that in the second year of operation, MMHC will have $1,106,891 total deductions from the gross revenues of $2,474,265, leaving net revenues of $1,367,374. Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. There are three deductions projected: Medicare, bad debts, and indigent care. Id. Since no Medicaid patients can be treated in free standing psychiatric beds, there is no Medicaid deduction. A total of $343,906 is projected as a Medicare deduction. Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. The Medicare program reimburses for the lesser of charges or reasonable costs in a free standing inpatient psychiatric facility. VI-2, 16; XII-2, 49. The calculation of the Medicare deduction was based upon the assumption that Medicare would reimburse 100 percent of the average cost per patient day. The average cost per patient day was roughly $166 for the second year of operation, which is the total operating expenses divided by the total number of patient days. XII-2, 47-48. Thus the Medicare deduction is basically the gross average daily charge, $313, less the average daily cost, $166, which is $147, times the estimated number of Medicare patient days, 2,342. VI-2, 15- 16. It is reasonable to base the estimated total Medicare reimbursement upon the average cost per patient day. This technique does not necessarily assume that Medicare will not disallow some costs in actual practice. XI1-2, Rather, the estimate is based upon a set of estimated costs, which produce the average daily cost, which in and of themselves do not contain any costs which are typically disallowed by Medicare officials. XII-2, 49. Moreover, the average cost per day is not reported Medicare. XII-2, 80. The report is based, rather, upon cost center accounting. Id. Medicare patients may incur costs that are different from other patients. XII-2, 65. There is some degree of flexibility in cost accounting, and some facilities are able to obtain a medicare reimbursement greater than the average cost per day for the entire facility. XII-2, 49-50, 64, 85. Charter Tampa presented expert opinion that MMHC will receive 90 percent of its projected cost from Medicare. XII-2, 52. A loss of 10 percent of costs would result in a loss of about $39,000 in net revenue. XII-2, 56. It is unclear from Charter Tampa's expert's opinion, however, whether the 90 percent figure was 90 percent of what a free standing hospital would submit to Medicare, or 90 percent of average daily costs for the entire facility. If his opinion were the former, it may not be inconsistent with the opinion expressed by the expert for MMHC. MMHC's expert testified that although some costs submitted to Medicare may be disallowed, other costs may be approved, and the total approved cost still may be greater or the same as the average daily cost for the facility (and all patients) as a whole. See the preceding paragraph. The second estimated deduction from gross revenues associated with the 27 hospital licensed beds is a deduction of $268,038 for bad debt for the second year of operation. Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. The bad debt estimate concerns the insured patients, other than Medicare, and some private pay patients. The estimate of bad debt is based generally upon the assumption that a small portion of private paying patients will not pay part or all of what is billed, and a more substantial portion attributed to a failure of the patient to pay the co- payment or deductible after insurance has paid its portion of the bill. VI- 2, 19, 78. The bad debt estimate is about 10.8 percent of total gross revenues for the 27 hospital licensed beds in the second year of operation. VI-2, 78, 19. The 10.8 percent is about 20 percent of the revenues generated by the 48.2 percent of patients who have insurance. Table 7, MMHC Ex. 2; VI-2, 80. The assumption was not that all insured patients would fail to pay their 20 percent share, VI-2, 79, but rather that some private pay patients would fail to pay some portion of their charge, combined with a failure of insured patients generally, but not always, to pay their co-payments or deductible. VI-2, 79-80. There is credible expert opinion in the record supported by the analysis in the preceding paragraph that the estimate of bad debt is reasonable. VI-2, 80. That expert opinion is further corroborated by Charter Tampa Ex. 12, which is the Report of the Hospital Cost Containment Board for 1984. That report assigns to short term psychiatric hospitals the code "4C." The following hospitals thus are listed by the Hospital Cost Containment Board as short term psychiatric hospitals, and report for 1984 the following bad debt percentage of patient charges: Bad Debt Percentage 4C Hospital of Patient Charges Brevard MCH 21.5 Ft. Lauderdale Hospital 2.7 Hollywood Pavilion 11.5 Charlotte Medical Center 5.1 Highland Park Medical Center 2.2 P. L. Dodge Memorial Hospital 5.9 St. John's River Hospital 2.4 Fla. Alcoholism Treatment Center --- Northside Community Mental Health Center 6.8 Tampa Heights Hospital 6.5 Lake/Sumter CMHC --- Charter Glade Hospital 3.2 Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches 3.1 45th Street CMHC 12.3 Camelot Care Center, Inc. 2.5 Horizon Hospital 10.5 Medfield Center 3.8 Indian River CMHC 10.0 Sarasota Palms Hospital 1.7 West Lake 4.1 It is concluded, therefore, that the estimate of bad debt in the second year of operation is reasonable. The final deduction estimated from gross revenue for the 27 hospital licensed beds is a deduction of $494,947 for indigent care. Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. The basis for this deduction is an expectation that MMHC will be able to collect only 10 percent of the $549,941 to be billed to private pay patients. Table 7, MMHC Ex. 2; VI-2, 77, 20-21, 22. MMHC plans to bill these private pay patients, II-2, 36, and the bill will not be on a sliding scale. VII-2, 40. Nonetheless MMHC considers most of such billings to be charity or indigent care and will not expect to collect 90 percent of such billings. II-2, 37. Since the gross revenues to be billed to private pay patients is based in the second year of operation upon an average charge per day of $313, the 10 percent collection estimate is an estimate that about $30 per day per patient will be collected. Currently in the other licensed CSU and detoxification beds MMHC is only able to collect at most about 20.5 percent of overall gross revenues. VI- 2, 76. The record does not contain precise evidence as to current fees in the other licensed beds, but it may be concluded that such current fees are very roughly $100 per day for the CSU, substance abuse, and detoxification beds. VII-2, 36, II-2, 12. Thus, it is inferred that currently MMHC collects very roughly $20 per patient day in these beds. If MMHC were able to collect only $20 per day from the 1757 patient days identified in Table 7, MMHC Ex. 2, as being the second year patient days attributable to private pay patients, it would collect approximately $17,000 less net revenue than is now shown in Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. It is difficult to tell, on this record, whether it is more likely that MMHC will continue to collect about $20 per patient day from these patients, or whether the enhanced services will attract a few more private pay patients who will pay proportionately more of their bills, thus making the $30 per patient day estimate more reasonable. To complete the estimate of revenues, it was estimated that the "other licensed" beds, crisis stabilization, detoxification, (and substance abuse, if option A is implemented) will generate $1,889,770 in gross revenues in the first year of operation, and $2,010,399 in gross revenues in the second year of operation. Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2; V1-2, 12-13, 21-22, 82-83. The net revenues for the other licensed beds are based upon current use rates for current Manatee County population applied to the estimated future Manatee County populations in the first and second years of operation. VI-2, 81-82. The assumption is that the current indigent patients served in these other licensed beds will continue to be served and keep pace at the same rate as the population of Manatee County grows. Id. To reach net revenues for these beds, the current Baker Act and Myers Act funding for these beds was analyzed and used as the expected basis for revenues. These expected revenues were inflated forward at 5 percent a year. Id. Additionally, a few patients were estimated to continue to be served in these beds who did not qualify for Baker Act funding, and it was estimated that only 10 percent of the gross revenues would be collected from these patients. VI-2, 82-83. See also VI-2, 21-22. As a result of these deductions from gross revenues for indigent care, it is estimated that the other licensed beds will generate $1,052,636 in net revenues in the first year of operation, and $1,105,789 in net revenues in the second year of operation. Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. These estimates are reasonable. Projected Expenses The forecast statement of revenue and expenses contains estimates of expenses in several categories: salaries and wages, benefits, non-salary expenses, depreciation, and general and administrative expenses. MMHC Ex. 2. The projected annual salaries are found on Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2. These projected annual salaries are based upon and reflect current salaries, and are inflated by 6 percent for each year beyond the current year. VI-2, 91-94, 110, VII-2, 118-119, IX-2, 21-22, 27-28; MMHC Ex. 4. An inflation rate of 6 percent annually is reasonable. VII-2, 119. The salary levels, based upon current experience and retention, plus state classification plan salaries for positions which do not yet exist, and compared to mental health centers in the state by an expert, are reasonable. IX-2, 27-28, VI-2 95-110. It was stipulated that adequate and qualified staff will be obtained. Finding of fact 47. Salary expense is allocated on Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2, between the hospital licensed beds and the other licensed beds based upon the ratio of total patient days projected for each group of beds. VI-2, 23-24. The total salary expense projected for the second year of operation is $1,229,871. The expense for benefits associated with salaries is reasonable. It is based upon current MMHC experience and is 24 percent of total salaries. VI- 2, 24. The benefit expense is $295,169 in the second year of operation. Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. Non-salary expense are projected to be $457,512 in the second year of operation. Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. This expense is projected to be 30 percent of the projected expense for salaries and benefits. VI-2, 25, 112. A ratio of 30 percent has been the actual experience of MMHC for the eight months from July 1985 through February 1986. VI-2, 117. Glen Oaks is currently providing three of the four services that it will provide if the certificate of need is granted: crisis stabilization beds, detoxification beds, and substance abuse beds. VI-2, 127-28. The non-salary expense for the new beds (which primarily will be the 17 hospital licensed psychiatric beds since substance abuse is already being provided) should be quite similar to the non-salary expenses currently being incurred for the crisis stabilization beds. VI-2, 115. The primary new expense with the addition of the new beds will be salary expenses. VI-2, 119. The addition of the new beds will result in the addition of more treatment therapies which are staff intensive, but does not generate non-salary expense to any unusual degree. VI-2, 122, 140. At the same time, the current non-salary expense contains certain substantial fixed expenses, such as utility costs, which will not increase with the increase of more staff, and in that sense the use of a 30 percent figure is conservative. VI-2, 118-119, III. Thus, the estimate that non-salary expenses will be 30 percent of the expenses for salaries and benefits is reasonable. VI-2, 127-128; XII-2, 42-43. The next projected expense is a depreciation expense of $89,280 for the first and second years of operation. This expense is based upon a 30 year straight line depreciation of the "total project costs" shown on page 57 MMHC Ex. 2. VI-2, 26 There is no evidence to suggest that this expense estimate is unreasonable. Since the building was funded not by borrowing and by revenues from charges but from a Legislative appropriation, is not altogether clear that MMHC would have to reserve $89,000 annually to replace the facility at the end of 30 years. Thus, addition of this expense is conservative. VI-2, 26. Finally, in the second year of operation it is estimated that general and administrative expenses will be $314,953. Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2; VI-2, 27. These are expenses related to support functions provided by management. Id. The estimate is based upon current budget plus increase in staff projected in the project. Id. There is no evidence to suggest that this estimate is unreasonable, and thus it is found to be reasonable. Dr. Howard Fagin testified as an expert for Charter Tampa concerning ratios derived from data contained in reports to the Hospital Cost Containment Board. The data relied upon by Dr. Fagin was the actual financial experience of 16 free standing psychiatric facilities in Florida for 1984, which was the latest compilation of such data. XI-2, 41, 94. The Hospital Cost Containment Board category for "salary and wages" did not include "benefits." These were included under the "other" category. XI-2, 39. Thus, Dr. Fagin calculated a ratio of all expenses other than "salary and wages" divided by "salary and wages" for each of the 16 free standing psychiatric facilities. XI-2, 41. That average percentage was 132 percent. He made the same calculation for only the licensed beds portion of the estimated salaries and other expenses in Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2, for the second year of operation and found that to be 94 percent. XI-2, 40. (Had he computed the ratio for the total for both licensed and so- called "unlicensed" beds, it would have been the same 94 percent.) Ms. Deborah Krueger testified as an expert for MMHC. Ms. Krueger testified that there were 18 free standing psychiatric hospitals in Florida in 1984, but that 4 of these were community mental health centers. XII-2, 45. Ms. Krueger then did the same calculation as was performed by Dr. Fagin, as discussed in finding of fact 104, but limited to the 4 community mental health centers. The average was 81.3 percent. Brevard was 96.5 percent; Palm Beach 45th Street was 78.4 percent; Hillsborough was 87.9 percent; and Lake Sumter Community Mental Health Center was 78.4 percent. XII-2, 46. Ms. Krueger also did the same calculation for the remaining 14 free standing psychiatric facilities that were not community mental health facilities and that ratio was 132 percent. The ratio used by Dr. Fagin and Ms. Krueger is one that increases as the "other expenses" category becomes greater in relationship to salaries and wages. Thus, the lower the ratio, the smaller the "other expenses" in comparison to salaries and wages. Comparisons such as those performed by Dr. Fagin and Ms. Krueger are useful as secondary modes of analysis, but are not as useful or reasonable as the actual recent experience of Glen Oaks facility itself. XII-2, 39, 43; VI-2, 143-144. Without more detailed information concerning the actual cost behavior and cost structure of the other existing facilities, it is difficult to draw conclusions from the comparisons offered above in finding of fact 104 and 105. However, of the two comparisons, the one done by Ms. Krueger is more relevant. It appears that the 132 percent ratio obtained by Dr. Fagin was either of all free standing facilities or of only the free standing psychiatric facilities that were not community mental health centers. Dr. Fagin did not state whether the 16 facilities chosen included community mental health centers. XI-2, 41. It is probable from the testimony of Ms. Krueger that Dr. Fagin's 16 facilities did not include community mental health centers, and thus his testimony, summarized in finding of fact 104, is irrelevant. Dr. Fagin's testimony is less reliable than Ms. Krueger's for the further reason-that it may be inferred that the cost structures and cost behaviors of the four community mental health centers in Ms. Krueger's analysis would be much more comparable to the facility proposed by MMHC than the aggregate of facilities contained in Dr. Fagin's analysis. Ms. Krueger's testimony, summarized in finding of fact 105, is secondary and corroborative evidence that the projected expenses (other than salaries and wages) of MMHC for the second year of operation of the total project, as well as for the hospital licensed beds, is reasonable and conservative. This is especially true with respect to the comparison to the Brevard Community Mental Health facility, which had a ratio of other expenses to salaries of 96.5 percent, almost the same as that projected for MMHC. The Brevard facility operates inpatient programs in much the same setting and manner as proposed by MMHC. IX-2, 37-38, 43-45, 48, 64. See finding of fact 68. MMHC intends to contract with David Feldman and Peat, Marwick Co. Mr. Feldman will assist with reporting such things as Medicare matters, reports to the Hospital Cost Containment Board, and the like. I-2, 81. Mr. Feldman and Peat, Marwick Co. also would work on establishing charges for services. I-2, Peat, Marwick Co. also would be assisting in pricing, budgeting, and reporting. II-2, 50. Mr. Feldman's services might cost about $720 or less since he might donate some time. II-2, 11. The costs of Peat, Marwick Co. are not known. II-2, 50. Neither cost has specifically been made a part of the estimates of expenses in the first or second year of operation. Long Term Financial Feasibility Conclusions Although contrary findings of fact have been made in the preceding paragraphs concerning the issues which follow, it is useful to look at the effect of the possibility that estimating errors are contained in Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. If Dr. Fagin were correct that MMHC would obtain only 90 percent of costs for Medicare reimbursement, this would result in a loss of $39,000 in revenue. Finding of fact 88-90. If Ms. Krueger were wrong, and Appendix A in fact contained rounding errors, this would mean an increase in salary expenses of $6,369. If indigents in fact will pay less than 10 percent for services in the hospital licensed beds, this would result in a loss of $17,000 in revenue. Finding of fact 95. If 2 percent of all estimated patient days would be lost to a facility like MMH because of dual medical/psychiatric diagnosis, this would result in a loss of 158.1 patient days out of 7,905 in the second year of operation, or a loss of revenue of $49,485 at $313 average per patient day. And if accounting firm expenses are left out of the estimate of future expenses, perhaps this may be $5,000 annually. Adding these figures (since a loss of revenue or a gain in expenses is the same thing as far as net income is concerned), net income in the second year of operation would be less by $116,854, which would result in a net operating loss in the second year of operation of $30,476. To recoup this loss and break even, MMHC would need only to raises its average charge per patient day by $3.93. This is calculated by dividing the net operating loss, $30,476, by the number of patient days, which would be 7905 less 2 percent, or 7746.9 patient days. Even making the assumptions in finding of fact 109, MMHC might still have net revenue at the end of the second year of operation if the depreciation expense, finding of fact 102, is not needed. But assuming that the $89,000 depreciation expenses is needed, and making the hypothetical assumptions of finding of fact 109, MMHC would still break even if it simply increased its average daily charge per patient from $313 to $317. The projected average charges of MMHC of $295 and $313 per patient day are lower than charges for similar services available to patients in the service area of MMHC. VI-2, 147. In 1986, Charter Hospital of Tampa Bay's 1986 budget filed with the Hospital Cost Containment Board reported gross revenue per adjusted patient day of $433. VI-2, 43. In 1984, the average gross revenue per patient day for MMH's short term psychiatric beds was $304. VI-2, 42. A reasonable inflation rate for that statistic would be 5 percent annually. VI-2, Thus, it may be inferred that the average gross revenue per patient day at MMH for its 25 short term psychiatric beds will probably increase to about $370 by 1988, if not more. (The same figure at Charter Tampa increased 17 percent in only two years, 1984 to 1986. VI-2, 43.) Thus MMHC could raise its per patient average daily charge by $4 in 1988 and easily remain competitive. MMHC annually has the fiscal goal of breaking even, with perhaps some small surplus. See finding of fact 19. Thus, long term financial feasibility must be considered with that goal in mind. Upon consideration of findings of fact 34 through 111, the project proposed by MMHC is financially feasible in the long term. Long term financial feasibility exists whether MMHC chooses option A or option B. VI-2, 10. The hospital license beds, as well as the entire facility at Glen Oaks, should realize some net income both the first and second years of operation and thus at least operate without net loss. Standing of Intervenors Charter Hospital of Tampa Bay is a wholly owned subsidiary of Charter Medical-Southeast, Inc. X-2, 34. It was purchased in April 1985. X-2, 54. Charter Tampa has 146 hospital licensed short term psychiatric beds, and no hospital licensed substance abuse beds. X-2, 24, 62. Geriatric patients are treated in the adult unit of Charter Tampa. XI-2, 117. Charter Tampa is located in Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida. X-2, 24. Charter Tampa considers Hillsborough County to be its primary service area. X-2, 55. In the ten months preceding July 1986, Charter Tampa's administrator estimated that Charter Tampa had served approximately ten patients from Manatee County. X-2, 29. Records of Charter Tampa reviewed by Charter Tampa's expert indicated that in a six month period Charter Tampa had served seven patients who were Manatee County residents. XI-2, 76. Charter Tampa's expert thus offered the opinion that 14 such patients were being served now by Charter Tampa annually, and that from 5 to 10 of these patients would be lost to MMHC if this certificate of need were to be granted. XI-2, 76. The expert stated that this loss would be a financial loss, but was not asked to give an opinion as to the amount of the loss. Id. Charter Tampa's administrator stated that he thought the loss would be $150,000 annually. X-2, 32. The record does not contain an explanation as to the estimate of a $150,000 loss was projected. The ages, sex, or types of treatment received by the patients that made up the ten patients served in that last ten months were not known. X-2, 50, 64. The origin of the patient was estimated by the origin of the person who guaranteed payment, but it was estimated that this was the same person as the patient in 90 percent of the instances. X-2, 60-61. Charter Tampa has had one psychiatrist for the last four months on temporary staff privileges who has an office or residence in Manatee County. X- 2, 51-52. That physician is involved in establishing an outpatient clinic for Charter Tampa in Manatee County. X-2, 81. Charter Tampa's formal list of physicians having staff privileges at Charter Tampa has four categories of staff privileges: active, courtesy, consulting, and affiliate. As of May 1986, Charter Tampa's physician staff in these four categories almost exclusively had offices in Tampa. None of the physicians having staff privileges at Charter Tampa had an office in Manatee County. MMHC Ex. 5; X-2, 53. Charter Tampa did not know any physicians, including the physician involved in setting up the outpatient clinic, who is residing in Manatee County and would admit patients to Charter Tampa in the future. X-2, 55, 81. Charter Tampa's administrator did not have any certain knowledge as to the numbers of patients from Manatee County that might be treated by Charter Tampa in the future. X-2, 51. The administrator of Charter Tampa had not reviewed the application materials of MMHC and did not know anything about the history of MMHC or the services it had been providing to the date of the final hearing. X-2, 61-62. Charter Tampa supported the effort of Charter Haven to obtain comparative review of a would-be competing application for the same services in Manatee County. I- 1, 58. The estimated impact of a loss of $150,000 in gross revenues annually is clearly overstated by Charter Tampa. The record in this case shows that the normal length of stay for short term inpatient hospital psychiatric patients is between 10 to 14 days. See findings of fact 59, 61-62. Since Charter Tampa serves geriatric patients such as MMHC proposes to serve from its GRTS program, it is reasonable to infer that the average length of stay of the 5 to 10 patients served now from Manatee County by Charter Tampa is about 14 days. Finding of fact 59. It is also reasonable to infer that the probable average gross revenue per patient day at Charter Tampa for these 5 to 10 patients is about $477. (This is the budgeted 1986 figure inflated twice at 5 percent. Finding of fact 111.) Thus, the estimated loss of 5 to 10 patients is an estimated loss of 70 to 140 patient days annually, or a projected loss of only $33,390 to $66,780 in gross revenues annually. If this loss were true, this would probably constitute substantial interest. The outpatient clinic that Charter Tampa intends to open in Manatee County will not serve inpatients. Moreover, it will serve mostly patients who will personally pay for services X-2, 62. Thus, it would not be serving patients that MMHC now serves. In sum, the intended outpatient clinic would not compete with or be substantially affected by the operation of inpatient hospital beds by MMHC as proposed in its application. XII-2, 28. Based upon findings of fact 113 through 120, it is further found that Charter Hospital of Tampa Bay will not be substantially affected by the grant of the certificate of need at issue in this case. The most that Charter Tampa estimates that it might lose is about 140 patient days annually. See finding of fact 120. But Manatee County will still have an unmet need of 27.4 short term psychiatric beds by the second year of the operation of MMHC's proposed beds. See finding of fact 65. On an annual basis (365 days) this is 10,001 patient days that will not be served by MMHC. Even if this residual unmet need were only 4,700 to 6,200 patient days as was thought by MMHC's expert, III-2 86-87, there is still a very substantial residual unmet need in Manatee County to be served by Charter Tampa. It is not believable that Charter Tampa will lose a mere 140 patient days with so many days of unmet need. This is especially true since Charter failed to persuasively identify the Manatee County patients that it would lose, or to identify the reasons that such patients would be lost. See findings of fact 113 through 118. It was stipulated between MMHC, MMH, and HRS, but not Charter Tampa, that MMH has standing (a substantial interest) to contest the issuance of the proposed 17 short term hospital psychiatric beds to MMHC as an existing provider of the same services. It was further stipulated by the same parties that MMH has no short term or long term substance abuse beds. X-2, 82-85. Charter Tampa put on no evidence contrary to these stipulations, and therefore the stipulations are accepted as fact in this record. Appendix A which follows contains specific rulings upon all proposed findings of fact which have been rejected. In some cases Appendix A contains discussions and further findings of fact. Those findings of fact in Appendix A are adopted by reference as findings of fact in this recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue its final order: Dismissing the petitions for intervention of Manatee Memorial Hospital and Charter Hospital of Tampa Bay to the extent that such petitions seek to contest the grant of a certificate of need to the Petitioner for short term substance abuse beds. Granting certificate of need number 2681 to Manatee Mental Health Center, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Crisis Center to operate 17 short term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds and 10 short term inpatient hospital substance abuse beds. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of December 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December 1986. APPENDIX A TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN DOAH CASE NUMBER 84-0988 The following are rulings by number upon all proposed findings of fact which have been rejected. Findings of fact proposed by Manatee Mental Health Center, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Crisis Center: 7. The record cited, 11-2, 85, does not support the conclusion that the 18 residential beds are not a part of the "necessary" continuum of care offered by MMHC. A finding of fact has been made that these beds are not a part of the treatment program of MMHC. 16. The implication in the last sentence that the project would provide "necessary licensed hospital services at very little cost" is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Without evidence on the point, the "position" of HRS is irrelevant. The second sentence is irrelevant since it refers to the 1985 local health plan. See the conclusions of law and discussion with respect to finding of fact 14 proposed by MMH. 21.i. This proposed finding of fact seeks a finding that the "optimal" occupancy rate is 75 percent. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to make that conclusion. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact has been adopted. 21.k. This proposed finding of fact is accounted for by the numeric rule, which is based upon population, and thus is cumulative. 24. The reference to the 1985 local plan is irrelevant. See proposed finding of fact 14 by MMH. 27-28. These proposed findings rely upon SIRS Ex. 1. HRS Ex. 1 relies upon an average length of stay of 14.3 days to 14.5 days. (This is mathematically obvious by dividing the projected number of patient days in each of the three projections by the number of admissions projected in each case.) While it is reasonable for MMHC to project an average length of stay of 14 days, this is so due to the fact that MMHC will have a substantial number of GRTS patients in its short term psychiatric beds. See findings of fact 57-59 and 61. The record does not contain, however, enough evidence to conclude that the average length of stay for all short term psychiatric patients in Manatee County will be 14 days. See VIII-2, 49-52. Indeed, the witness seems to have believed that the calculation in HRS Ex. 1 used an average length of stay of 9 days, but as discussed above, the math in HRS Ex. 1 is to the contrary. For this reason, and finding based upon HRS Ex. 1 is rejected. 29. Rejected because not in the record cited as proposed in this proposed finding of fact. I-1, 58. The last sentence with respect to projected occupancy levels of 85 percent on the average for the third year is rejected because not supported by the evidence. The witness did not so testify, and the exhibit cited does not provide average occupancy for the third year. This proposed finding is rejected since the average occupancy level of 85 percent for the third year is rejected in the preceding paragraph. 43. The conclusion that private physician referrals will be a bonus is rejected since the projection of 80 percent occupancy requires an increase in occupancy in the short term psychiatric beds from 8 to 12.6 beds from the first to second years. See finding of fact 65. The projection of an average daily census of 8 short term psychiatric patients was based solely upon patients currently within the MMHC system. See findings of fact 57 and 60. Thus, the increase of an average daily census to 12.6 in the second year must come in part from new patients referred by private physicians. This is not a bonus, but a necessary part of the projections of MMHC to reach 80 percent occupancy. Sentences three through five are rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. The fourth sentence is rejected as not relevant and inconclusive for lack of evidence of context. 58. This proposed finding of fact is irrelevant since these issues have been the subject of a stipulation removing them from dispute in this case. 59-64. These miscellaneous operational and managerial proposed findings of fact are not relevant. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services does not propose to deny the certificate of need with respect to these issues, and the simultaneously filed proposed findings of fact of the two Intervenors do not propose any facts concerning these issues. Thus, these issues are not in dispute in this case. The second sentence is cumulative and not relevant. This proposed finding of fact, as stated in the first sentence, is not disputed and thus not relevant. Findings have been made concerning the two options as this might affect the proposed number of beds sought. 81-82. It is true that MMHC currently has a sliding fee scale for determining how much certain impecunious patients will have to pay. It is also true that the updated application erroneously states that a sliding scale will be used if the certificate of need is granted. But expert witnesses relied upon the existing sliding fee scale only to project the portion of a hypothetical gross revenues which is currently being collected from patients receiving charity care. VII-2, 79. Thus, the error did not affect the reliability of testimony. No party has raised any of the foregoing as an issue. For these reasons, the matter is not relevant. 90. All sentences beyond the first sentence are mathematically correct, but are cumulative and unnecessary. 95. This proposed finding of fact is rejected because the 1983 local health plan does not contain the matter stated, the updated application is hearsay, and all plans other than plans in existence when the application was filed are not relevant. 97-98. To the extent not already adopted, these proposed findings of fact are rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 101. Opponents of the application of MMHC in proposed findings of fact have not proposed that an entirely new free standing psychiatric hospital would be a preferable alternative to the application of MMHC. Dr. Fagin testified that bed need in "the community . . . is best served by a new freestanding facility." XI-2, 74. He then contradicted that testimony by testifying that "I said that two of the best alternatives are approval of this project or disapproval of this project and maintenance of the existing programs at the Manatee Mental Health Center." XI-2, 116. Thus, the first sentence of this proposed finding is rejected for lack of support in the record. Finally, if the issue had been raised, at least facially it is true that the MMHC proposal appears to be less costly because it already has a building and a new project would have to pay for a new building by increased fees. But there is a cost to Florida taxpayers through public funding of the MMHC building which should be considered as well. The record is insufficient for such comparative review. The last sentence is rejected since about 90 percent of the time the guarantor and the patient are the same person. The fourth sentence is rejected because based upon a deposition taken earlier in time, and the deposition itself is not in evidence. The third sentence is irrelevant. 111. The second sentence is irrelevant. The second sentence is not supported by the record. The record shows that the parent company receives or would receive revenues from all subsidiaries, whether existing or proposed. The last sentence is rejected because not relevant: no party has argued that Charter Tampa is an adequate alternative to the proposal of MMHC. The corporate motives of the parent corporation are not relevant to the issue of the standing of Charter Tampa. The issue of standing of Charter Tampa must be considered upon evidence it presented concerning its substantial interest, as well as evidence submitted by other parties. Thus, this proposed finding is not relevant. Not relevant since the corporate motives of the parent are essentially not relevant. Not relevant as stated with respect to proposed finding of fact 117 and not supported by the record. The last two sentences are not relevant. Findings of fact proposed by Manatee Hospitals and Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Memorial Hospital: The proposed findings that social setting detoxification would be eliminated are rejected because contrary to the testimony cited. 11-2, 18-19. Findings with respect to the minimum residential beds are found in findings of fact 12 and 31. A finding that the current rented minimum residential beds are a part of the MMHC treatment program is rejected as contrary to the evidence as discussed in those findings. This proposed finding is a statement of law and a procedural statement. The proposed finding that the 1983 local health plan found no need for psychiatric and substance abuse beds for District VI is rejected. The plan found a need for substance abuse beds by 1988 (57 such beds) but no need for short terms psychiatric beds. MMHC Ex. 1, p. 53, 53-55. Any reference in this case to any local plan other than the 1983 local health plan, MMHC Ex. I, is legally incorrect and irrelevant. The amended application of MMHC only refers to the 1983 local health plan. See findings of fact 29 and 30, order of May 14, 1986, Appendix B herein. SIRS can only review an application for certificate of need against the specific local health plan cited by the application. NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Delray Community Hospital et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 492 So.2d 379, 385- 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Thus, the proposed finding must be rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as argument of law. Rejected because this plan was not in existence when the applicant filed its application, the applicant has not upon this plan for its application, and therefore, as discussed with respect to proposed finding of fact 14, the proposed finding is legally irrelevant. It is also rejected because irrelevant to this application: the application is for short term inpatient hospital psychiatric and substance abuse services; the application does not result in the loss of existing ARTS or EGRT programs, nor does it result in the loss of a formal treatment program of residential beds. See proposed finding of fact II above. Rejected as legally irrelevant for the reasons cited with respect to proposed finding of fact 14. Rejected for the reasons stated with respect to proposed findings of fact 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Sentences 3, 4, and 5 are rejected for the reasons stated in response to proposed finding of fact 18. 21. The second sentence concerning average lengths of stay at MMH must be rejected because the Hearing Officer has been unable to find the proposed finding in the record cited. The 1985 local health plan, CH Ex. 8, provides that in 1984, MMH had an average length of stay for adults in psychiatric beds of 11.0 days and 8.0 days for children. P. 120. The plan also states that non- hospital licensed crisis stabilization units are used lieu of hospital beds for stays less than 7 days, but that licensed hospitals provide more intensive service and the average length of stay can average 14-16 days. It is probable that data in a post-application local or state health plan can be utilized by the parties at a formal administrative hearing, so long as such use does not conflict with rule or statute. If data were to be relied upon from the 1985 District VI Local Health Plan, the above data supports the findings in the recommended order (finding of fact 61) that the average length of stay projected for most patients in the 17 short term psychiatric beds will be 10 to 14 days once the more intensive individual therapies are added to the inpatient program at MMHC. The third sentence in this proposed finding of fact is rejected. The high occupancy rates at MMH only show that MMH is near lawful capacity; it does not show that need in Manatee County is being adequately served by MMH, and indeed, the inference is to the contrary. Finally, the drop to 88 percent must be considered in relation to the prior rates and the rise again in the first four months of 1986. It does not show a clear or reliable diminution of need. 23. Rejected by finding of fact 43. The first sentence is rejected. The existence of CSU beds at MMHC would not be argued by MMH to be an adequate alternative to its own application for expanded hospital licensed beds. Moreover, the proposed application does not diminish the current CSU program at MMHC. That program will continue. The proposed findings that charges will increase and that the sliding fee scale for those unable to pay will be eliminated have been rejected by finding of fact 46. The finding that the proposed project would not be financially feasible is rejected by finding of fact 112. Evidence was introduced that services would be improved through shared resources. Specifically, benefits would be achieved by providing continuous care for patients within the MMHC system and indigent patients in the other licensed beds at Glen Oaks would benefit from expanded therapies. See findings of fact 26, 28, 29, 30, and 33. Thus, this finding of fact is rejected. It is true that no evidence was introduced services existing in counties other than Manatee County were reasonably close and accessible for patients and families in Manatee County. Without such evidence, it cannot be concluded that "services are available in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties" as proposed in this finding of fact. The proposed finding of fact is therefore rejected. The proposed finding is true and irrelevant. The fourth sentence is rejected as discussed with respect to proposed finding 27. See also findings of fact 2-26, 31, and 46. The eighth sentence is rejected since the applicant projects, reasonably, that its services to financially and medically indigent persons will continue in the non-hospital licensed beds and will increase as Manatee County population increases. The finding with respect to the sliding fee scale is rejected by finding of fact 46. The next sentence is rejected as discussed above in the first sentence of this paragraph. The last sentence is rejected by finding of fact 46. This second proposed finding is a narrative summary and is contained by separate issue in the findings of fact. The second sentence is rejected because MMHC records show that about 7 inpatient hospital admissions per month are made from MMHC outpatient programs, but it was estimated that only 2 of these per month would be retained by the MMHC hospital licensed beds. Finding of fact 57. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact is rejected for the reason stated in finding of fact 69. The fifth sentence is rejected because it is not the testimony of Ms. Wolchuck-Sher. It is only the hearsay statement from someone in a deposition characterized by Ms. Wolchuck-Sher without evidence of the context of the statement of the deponentor the reliability of Ms. Wolchuck-Sher's memory on the point. XII-2, 33. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact is rejected for the reasons discussed in finding of fact 68. The second sentence is rejected because the word calculated" in the question is unclear and the response is contrary to the record. Average lengths of stay were estimated based upon studies discussed in findings of fact 57 through 62. The third sentence is rejected because the testimony clearly indicates that the average lengths of stay were based upon a review of actual experience plus assumptions concerning an increase of average length of stay to about 10 days in the psychiatry beds to more closely approximate the average length of stay of MMH. See findings of fact 57 through 62. The sixth sentence is rejected for the reason discussed in findings of fact 57, 58, 59, and 62. The ninth and tenth sentences are rejected because there is no evidence to conclude that MMHC will not continue to serve an average daily census of 9 patients in its substance abuse beds. The remainder of the proposed finding of fact has been rejected in findings of fact 57 through 62. The first two sentences are rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 57 through 62. The third sentence is rejected because the financial projection of MHC estimate that the CSU beds will continue to operate as before, generating the same revenues. See finding of fact 96. This estimate implicitly assumes the same number of patients served and the same average length of stay of 6.5 days, not 10 days. VI-2, 81-82. The 10 day average length of stay only applies to the hospital licensed psychiatric patients, other than geriatric psychiatric patients. See findings of fact 57 through 62. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact is rejected because contrary to the underlying facts found in findings of fact 57 through 62 and 96. This proposed finding of fact has been rejected in findings of fact 88 through 90. The second sentence is rejected because the current collection rate is roughly 20.5 percent of gross revenues in the CSU and detoxification beds. VI- 2, 76. The estimate of 10 percent in the 27 hospital licensed beds was due to the fact that overall gross revenues for the hospital licensed beds would increase to about $300 per patient per day. Id. The remainder of the proposed finding of fact is partially adopted in findings of fact 109 through 112. The loss of $17,000 in gross revenues, considered by itself, would be within the projected net revenue for the second year of operation; the project still would end the year with positive net revenue. The fifth sentence in this proposed finding of fact is rejected. VI- 2, 112, 125. The sixth sentence is true but irrelevant. While it would be a better method to estimate non-salary costs by estimating each component thereof separately, the Petitioner need not present the best method. The method presented by the Petitioner, using actual historical data from MMHC, is reasonable. See finding of fact 100. MMH might have presented an estimate by each separate component, but it did not. All of the rest of this proposed finding of fact must be rejected. The reasons that Ms. Krueger gave for rejecting as unreliable non-salary to salary expense ratios in other MMHC programs were: that such programs were not the same as the inpatient programs contemplated in this application, VI-2, 126, and the programs operated at the Glen Ridge facility provide an inappropriate basis for comparison because the Glen Ridge facility in 1984 was a "dump" and not comparable to the new Glen Oaks facility, VI-2, 116. These are good reasons for not making these comparisons. Next, she did not testify that there "would be changes at Glen Oaks if it became licensed" as proposed by MMH. She testified that there would be future changes expected in "the mental health center." VI-2, 139. She then testified that a change in Glen Oaks should not be expected in the next few years, and therefore use of the most recent actual data from the current operation of the Glen Oaks facility was reasonable. VI-2, 139-140. Mr. More initially testified that the salaries on Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2, "reflect" the average salaries currently paid by MMHC. I-2, 97. On cross examination, Mr. More was asked "was it your testimony that those are your current salaries," and he replied "current average salaries, yes." 11-2, 15. In rebuttal, over objection that Mr. More was impeaching his own testimony, Mr. More testified that Table 11 contains current salaries blending with inflation. IX-2, 14-15. Mr. More was never asked on cross examination whether he was sure that Table 11 did not contain inflation factors. He was merely asked whether Table 11 figures "were" current salaries. They were. They were current salaries used as a base with an inflation factor. VI-2, 91-94. There is no confusion concerning whether Table 11 contains an inflation factor. Moreover, the rebuttal testimony of Mr. More was proper given the brevity and incompleteness of cross examination. The third sentence of this finding of fact is thus rejected. The remainder of the proposed finding of fact is also rejected. The proposed finding depends upon a finding that MMHC has had salary increases since February 1986 which have not been accounted for in Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2. The record does not support that proposed finding. First, the testimony of Ms. Radcliffe was insufficient to conclude that in fact there have been 3 percent raises in salaries since February 1986; she only said possible," and said "I have no knowledge of when any raises would come due." IX-2, 23. But more important, it appears that projected raises for fiscal year 1986 were contained in the figures of "current salaries" used. Ms. Radcliffe said that she used the figures that were in the budget revised in February, 1986, and that [w]hen 1 prepared the budgets, I used the current salaries as of when I prepared the budgets, and then 1 put in a small amount on the overall budget based on people getting raises at various times during the year." Id. In sum, the "current" salaries in fact contain all the budgeted-raises for fiscal year 1986. The first sentence is rejected because the estimate of expenses was based upon a percentage method (non-salary) and current statistics (general and administrative). No expenses items were "deleted" as such. The second and third sentences are not supported by enough record evidence to make it relevant. Mr. More testified that MMHC already was producing a "TV series" that was "coming up," and that MMHC would be "continuing this kind of effort once we become a licensed hospital." Thus, to some extent TV expenses must already be accounted for in current general and administrative expenses. The only other TV comment was in the next paragraph when Mr. More mentioned timing a "TV marketing effort in with the opening of the hospital." 1-2, 94. There is no-further evidence in the record concerning the cost of such TV marketing, whether such marketing would occur only at the opening or would be ongoing, and whether the cost is significant. The sixth and seventh sentences are rejected as not relevant. The depreciation expense is somewhat unusual in this case since MMHC does not own the building. See finding of fact 102. Moreover, even if the expense in this area should increase by $2500 per year, that is effectively only $0.31 per patient day out of 7905 patient days in the second year of operation. The issue is negligible. VI-2, 46. The eighth sentence is rejected because the rounding error is not in appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2; it is probably in Table 11, MMHC Ex. 2. VI-2, 87-88. The last sentence is rejected as not relevant. Dr. Ravindrin was evidently recruited by MMHC with current resources, coming to work in 1985. V-2, 6. Dr. Ravindrin further will be the only full time physician out of the 2.4 FTE's allocated for physicians in the new staffing pattern. Finding of fact 73. As discussed in the findings of fact, current "general and administrative" expenses were used as the basis for projecting future expenses Thus, should Dr. Ravindrin leave, it is reasonable to assume that the same level of budgeted general and administrative expenses will be sufficient to recruit a replacement. Finally, the remaining physicians will only be part-time, and thus should not involve moving expenses. Moreover, all of the physicians have been identified and thus there will not be any recruitment expenses in the first few years of operation. XII-2, 39. This proposed finding of fact is a summary of proposed findings of fact which have been rejected for the reasons stated above, and thus it also is rejected for the reasons stated above. This proposed finding is not relevant for the reasons stated in the proposed finding. The first six sentences are rejected by findings of fact 25, 26, 46, 93 and 96. The proposed finding in the eighth sentence that MMHC "may actually serve fewer indigents" is rejected as not credible. MMHC will continue to serve the same number of indigents in the other licensed beds as well as some other indigents in the hospital licensed beds. See the above findings of fact. The ninth sentence is rejected by findings of fact 18, 19, 20, 26, 28, 29, and 30. The last two sentences are rejected due to all the findings of fact listed in this paragraph. The second sentence is rejected because not true. MMHC currently does not serve patients served by MMH. See finding of fact 17. The third and fourth sentences are rejected by findings of fact 38 and 41 D. Findings of fact proposed by Charter-Medical Southeast, Inc., d/b/a Charter Hospital of Tampa Bay: 6. The fourth sentence is rejected because it is an argument of law. 9. The record does not contain sufficient evidence concerning the programs conducted at Glen Ridge to conclude that it was a "clinic" then. Moreover, the record does not contain a sufficiently clear definition of a "clinic" to make this proposed factual finding. Thus, the third sentence must be rejected. 11. The third through fifth sentences are rejected because evidence to support these proposed findings of fact is not found at the place in the record cited. 15, 16, and 17. To the extent these proposed findings reference health plans adopted after the application was filed, and not cited by the application as amended, the proposed findings are irrelevant. See discussion with respect to the proposed findings of fact 14-19 of MMH. The first three sentences are rejected because the 18 minimum residential beds currently rented by MMHC are not part of a MMHC treatment program. See findings of fact 12 and 31. The next two sentences are rejected as irrelevant for this reason, and also because the referenced plans are 1985 plans. The last two sentences are rejected because the cost to patients will continue to be based upon ability to pay; the cost will not increase for those patients financially unable to pay. See finding of fact 46. In the first sentence, the phrase "as a component of those programs" is rejected because contrary to the evidence. See finding of fact 12 and 31. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact has been essentially rejected due to the findings of fact 12 and 31. The majority of this finding of fact has not been adopted since it is a statement of law. The categorical statements contained in the last two sentences of this proposed finding of fact must be rejected. Although MMHC is currently providing good care, MMHC has experienced funding stresses and the quality and continued viability of all of its services would be enhanced by obtaining an additional funding source. See finding of fact 18. If the certificate of need were granted, indigent patients in the CSU would have the opportunity to receive expanded therapies not now available to them, see finding of fact 20, although presumably available to patients having third party payor sources at MMH (which has a longer average length of stay, see finding of fact 61). The second one-half of this proposed finding of fact proposes a finding that the proposed average length of stay for psychiatric beds will be unreasonable. This proposed finding has been rejected in findings of fact 57 and 58. The first sentence is rejected as irrelevant. An applicant for a certificate of need not be in "dire financial straits" to be entitled to seek expansion of its services. In fact, an unhealthy financial condition might mitigate against the award of a certificate of need. For the same reason, the last sentence is also rejected as irrelevant. Most of this proposed finding of fact has been rejected for the reasons stated with respect to MMH proposed finding of fact 40. The eighth sentence is rejected because there is no citation to the record and because the testimony of Ms. Krueger was to the effect that it was not proper to calculate ratios for outpatient programs or Glen Ridge programs at MMHC and because the audited financial statements at pages 36-42 of MMHC Ex. 2 required extensive accounting adjustment to result in a comparable comparison. The ninth sentence (which concerns the comparisons made by Dr. Fagin to 1984 Hospital Cost Containment Board actual data) is rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 104 through 107. The tenth sentence is rejected because the testimony of Mr. Hackett cited is actually evidence that estimated expenses of MMHC are reasonable. Mr. Hackett testified that the "salary expense" at Charter Hospital of Tampa Bay recently was 44 percent of the total operating budget. X-2, 26. This left 56 percent for all other expenses, not for "non-salary" expenses in the sense that that is used in Appendix A, MMHC Ex. 2. In the second year of operation, MMHC projects that its "salaries and wages" expense will be $1,229,871, and that its total operating expense will be $2,386,785. Thus, MMHC projects that its "salary expense" will be 51 percent of its total operating expenses. Assuming Mr. Hackett meant "operating expenses" when he responded to the question about "operating budget," it is apparent that the MMHC estimate is reasonably the same as that currently experienced by Charter Tampa. (If "operating budget" meant net revenues, the percentage is 50 percent.) Thus, MMHC projects that its expense other than salaries and wages will be about 50 percent of all expenses, and Charter Tampa currently operates with other expenses at 56 percent of all other expenses. Charter Tampa is not a community mental health center. There is clear evidence in the record that the ratio of expenses other than salaries to salaries is much lower for community mental health centers than to free standing psychiatric facilities. See finding of fact 104 to 107. Thus, the fact that MMHC estimates that expenses other than salaries will be 50 percent of the total expenses, compared to the 56 percent ratio of Charter Tampa, is entirely consistent with that evidence. If anything, MMHC has estimated expenses other than salaries too high, and much closer to a facility like Charter Tampa. This proposed finding of fact is essentially the same as proposed finding of fact 36 by MMH and is rejected for the reasons stated with respect to that proposed finding. The following additional comments are noted. The average length of stay was not assumed to increase in the CSU: it implicitly remained the same since estimated revenues remained the same. The average length of stay overall for the 17 hospital licensed psychiatric beds was 14 days, but this was a mix of 10 day average lengths of stay for some patients, and 20 day average lengths of stay for elderly patients. The average length of stay at MMH is established at about 10 days by testimony. VI-2, 72. See also discussion related to MMH proposed finding of fact 21. The assumed average length of stay in the hospital licensed substance abuse beds was never tied to patient days or fiscal projections; instead, MMHC simply estimated a continued average daily census of 9 patients, which is current experience and is reasonable. Improved treatment logically will lengthen the average length of stay since the improved treatment involves greater individual attention, education, and exploration of causes of the acute psychiatric episode. While improved treatment might shorten the length of stay for a long term patient, it surely will lengthen the average length of stay for a patient who has only been an inpatient for a few days to stabilize an acute crisis. Rejected because the underlying proposed finding of fact 32 concerning average length of stay has been rejected. Rejected for the reasons stated in rejection of MMH proposed finding of fact 39. Rejected for the reasons stated in findings of fact 68 and 69 and as discussed in rejection of MMH proposed findings of fact 34 and 35. The portion of the proposed finding concerning dually diagnosed patients also has been determined to be irrelevant in findings of fact 109 through 112. Rejected for the reasons discussed in rejection of MMH proposed finding of fact 41, and irrelevant for the reasons stated in findings of fact 109-112. Rejected by findings of fact 88 through 90. Rejected for the reasons discussed in response to proposed finding of fact 42 of MNH. Rejected by finding of fact 112. To the extent that the second sentence proposes a finding of fact that Charter Tampa "directly serves" Hernando and Pasco Counties, it is rejected for lack of a citation to the record. Service of these counties is also irrelevant. The last sentence has been rejected by findings of fact 113 through 121, and particularly 119 and 120. The first portion of the first sentence is rejected by findings of fact 18, 19, 26, 28, 29, and 30. The last two sentences are rejected by findings of fact 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 46, 70, 93, and 96. This proposed finding of fact is rejected by findings of fact 26, 46, 70, 93, and 96. The first four sentences are rejected because not supported by record evidence. None of the questions asked concerning deposition responses significantly pertained to the witness's ultimate credibility, and her responses upon cross examination were believable. The fifth and sixth sentences are rejected because the error noted, III-2, 164, is relatively insignificant. The seventh sentence, which pertains to the lack of precise charges for services, has been rejected in finding of fact 84. The eighth and ninth sentences are rejected because there is no evidence to explain the relevance of the question asked by counsel. If the definition of "residential treatment beds" pursuant to the state health plan were important in this case, presumably an expert would have testified to the issue. An assumption cannot be made that the definition of "residential treatment beds" in the state health plan is relevant in this case without some evidence or explanation for the relevance. Moreover, the context of the question was with respect to the loss of the 18 "minimum residential beds" which in fact were not "treatment" beds. See findings of fact 12 and 31. Thus, the question had little relevance to the witness. The tenth sentence is true, but does not, in context, significantly detract from the credibility of the witness. The final sentence is rejected for the reasons stated in this paragraph. This proposed finding is rejected in findings of fact 113 through 121. This proposed finding is an argument of law, not fact, and thus is rejected as a finding of fact. This is a summary conclusion of fact that has been rejected throughout the findings of fact. This proposed finding of fact is rejected for the reasons stated with respect to MMH proposed finding of fact 27. This proposed finding of fact is rejected for the reasons stated with respect to MMH proposed finding of fact 27 and findings of fact 40, 41, and 43. Findings of fact proposed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services: This proposed finding of fact is not supported by the record cited, and is irrelevant since the applicant has not sought approval of 39 short term psychiatric beds. The methodology upon which this proposed finding of fact is based is not contained in State rule 10-5.11(25), Florida Administrative Code, and is not a methodology contained in the relevant 1983 local health plan, MMHC Ex 1. If it is incipient policy applied to this case, HRS failed to clearly explicate the basis for the policy. Indeed, the record concerning the policy is quite unclear. VIII-2, 50-53. In particular, no explanation was given for using utilization rates, or the validity of the utilization rates. It appears that this proposed finding of seeks a finding of fact that the status quo utilization at the only provider of short term psychiatric care, and thus the only source of utilization data in Manatee County at present should be projected to 1988 populations. The utilization rates appear to be derived from use rates for 1984! 1985, and 1986 populations. Which one is right? Why does this health planning method predict more net need in 1984 based upon fewer people living in Manatee County, and less net need in 1986, based upon more people living in Manatee County? HRS Ex. 1. Moreover, how can the needs of the mentally ill in Manatee County be predicted from use data derived by Manatee Memorial Hospital (the county's only resource) which for the relevant years has been running at full capacity? How can the unmet need be measured by such a method? The record does not answer these questions. It contains no explanation for the Source of the utilization rates except that it came from "the local health council." VIII-2, 50. Thus, this proposed finding of fact must be rejected for lack of explication in the record. Because this proposed finding of fact appears to rely on proposed finding of fact 7, it too must be rejected. A net need for the 17 beds does exist independently of proposed finding of fact 7. 11. To the extent that this proposed finding implies that currently the 18 minimum residential beds are mental health treatment beds, that proposed finding has been rejected by finding of fact 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Fred W. Baggett, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 110 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chris H. Bentley, Esquire Fuller & Johnson, P.A. Ill North Calhoun Street Post Office Box 1739 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William E. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire James A. Dyer, Esquire King & Spalding 2500 Trust Company Tower 25 Park Place Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Room 407 - Building One 1-323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jay Adams, Esquire 215 E. Virginia St., Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John P. Harllee, III, Esquire Harllee, Porges, Bailey & Durkin, P.A. 1205 Manatee Avenue Post Office Box 9320 Bradenton, Florida 33506 Wallace Pope, Jr., Esquire Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor & Ruppel, P. A. P. O. Box 1368 Clearwater, Florida 33517 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) should grant the application of Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Inc. (WUESTHOFF), for a Certificate of Need (CON) (CON 8597) to establish a new 50-bed general acute care hospital in South Brevard County, District 7.
Findings Of Fact WUESTHOFF is a 303-bed, acute care hospital in Brevard County, Florida. In addition to its hospital, WUESTHOFF has three home health locations, eight or nine walk-in clinics, a hospice, a durable medical equipment business, an ambulatory surgery center, two freestanding diagnostic centers, and outpatient labs throughout Brevard County. HRMC is a JCAHO accredited, 528-bed, regional, not-for- profit community hospital based in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. HRMC is comprised of two acute care campuses: a 468- bed tertiary hospital in Melbourne, and a 60-bed, general acute care hospital in Palm Bay. The Melbourne campus operates a 10-bed, Level II, neonatal, intensive care unit, and 428 general medical and pediatric beds. The Proposed Project WUESTHOFF chose to establish a satellite hospital complex in South Brevard County by applying separately for: (1) a certificate of need (CON) to decertify and de-license 100 general acute care hospital beds and undertake certain renovations and improvements at its existing Rockledge hospital facility; (2) a CON for a medical office building (MOB); (3) a non-reviewability letter for a $35 million diagnostic and treatment center (DTC), which would provide all of the ancillary services for the new satellite hospital; and (4) the CON to establish the 50-bed hospital (CON 8597) which is at issue in this case. In CON 8597, WUESTHOFF has asked AHCA to treat the $35 million DTC as the “sunk” costs of an existing facility, and to review the CON application at issue in this case incrementally— i.e., as consisting of only the inpatient tower and the additional ancillary activities that would take place at the complex, over and above those that would take place at the DTC without the inpatient tower. Viewing CON 8597 in this way, WUESTHOFF presented total project costs of only $13 million. In preparing the financial schedules for CON 8597, WUESTHOFF presented the revenues and expenses of the entire hospital operation (including the DTC), except for the additional activities (inpatient and ancillary) that would result from the addition of the inpatient tower, and the revenues and expenses of the entire hospital operation, including the additional activities (inpatient and ancillary) that would result from the addition of the inpatient tower. By presenting the financial schedules in this manner, WUESTHOFF never presented the revenues and expenses of the entirety of the new satellite hospital it is proposing to establish, and AHCA has not had the opportunity to review those revenues and expenses. WUESTHOFF planned to build the MOB, the DTC and the inpatient tower in one continual course of construction and to open the entire complex at the same time; the complex, when completed, was planned to function as a single, integrated hospital facility. AHCA granted the first three applications comprising WUESTHOFF’s project but denied CON 8597. In a subsequent batch, WUESTHOFF filed a letter of intent for a single CON application that the combined the DTC and inpatient tower projects at a total cost of approximately $50,000,000. Need In Relation To State And District Health Plans: Section 408.035(1)(a) Florida Statutes State Health Plan The first State Health Plan preference favors applicants who demonstrate that the subdistrict occupancy rate is at or exceeds 75 percent, or in the case of existing facilities, where the occupancy rate for the most recent 12 months is at or exceeds 85 percent. WUESTHOFF failed to meet this preference. For the applicable period, the subdistrict occupancy was approximately 53 percent; however, more recent data shows that occupancy is below 53 percent, which suggests a continuing decline in inpatient occupancy rates in the subdistrict. During the applicable period, the occupancy rate at WUESTHOFF’s Rockledge facility was only slightly more than 45 percent. The second State Health Plan preference favors an applicant with a history of providing a disproportionate share of the subdistrict’s acute care and Medicaid patient days, and further meets the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital criteria. WUESTHOFF failed to meet this preference, as it is not a disproportionate share provider. The third State Health Plan preference favors an applicant that provides or proposes to provide disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals within the district or subdistrict. WUESTHOFF’s existing facility is not a disproportionate share hospital. (Although WUESTHOFF’s CON application proposes to condition award of the CON setting aside 15 percent of its discharges for Medicaid, charity, and indigent patients, its application does not provide percentages for each category.) The fourth State Health Plan preference considers the current and projected indigent inpatient case load, the proposed facility size, and the case and service mix, WUESTHOFF’s application partially complies with the preference in that it proposes to provide some indigent care. The fifth State Health Plan preference favors proposals that would not negatively affect the financial viability of an existing, disproportionate share hospital. This preference is not applicable in this case. The sixth State Health Plan preference favors applicants with a record of accepting indigent patients for emergency care. WUESTHOFF meets this preference. The seventh State Health Plan preference favors applicants for any type of hospital project if the facility is verified as a trauma center. WUESTHOFF does not meet this preference. WUESTHOFF claims that it operate the emergency room at the proposed facility with “the same level of services as WUESTHOFF’s existing emergency room.” WUESTHOFF does not currently operate a Level II trauma center at its Rockledge campus. The eighth State Health Plan preference favors applicants who can document that they provide a full range of emergency services. WUESTHOFF’s Rockledge facility offers a range of emergency services, but the emergency department at the proposed facility will necessarily offer a limited range of services, as the proposed facility will not be a tertiary care hospital, and emergency patients in need of those services will have to be transferred. The ninth State Health Plan preference favors applicants who can document that it has not been fined by HRS for any violation of the emergency services statutes. WUESTHOFF meets this preference. Local Health Plan Preferences The District 7 Local Health Plan sets forth five preferences to be used in evaluating CON applications for the transfer/relocation/delicensure of acute care beds. The health plan provides that “[p]reference shall be given to applications for transfer of existing acute care beds, delicensure/conversion of existing acute care beds and/or relocation of an entire facility if the applicant can provide substantial documentation of: The need for acute care beds or specialty beds in the service area proposed to receive the beds. Need should address specific populations, access consideration, etc. The impact of the proposed project on the parent facility including projected occupancy declines, curtailing of service effect on operating cost, use of vacated space at the main campus and charge changes. The proposed service improving access by at least 25 minutes to at least 10 percent of the population or a minimum of at least 35,000 people. This should be substantiated by analyses of patient origin to existing providers, physician referral practices and location of physician offices. Commitment to provision of care to both no-pay and low-pay medically indigent patients and Medicaid patients at a minimum of no more than 2 percent below the most recent HCB publication for the District of the charity/uncompensated care percentage of net revenues. Agreement to participate in any indigent care programs which exist in the county or counties proposed to be served. Participation should be at a rate equal to or greater than the average for the general hospitals also serving that area. As to the first preference, WUESTHOFF failed to demonstrate a need for the proposed 50-bed general acute care hospital. Even with the delicensure of 100 acute care beds as a result of WUESTHOFF’s companion application, there still is an oversupply of 215 acute care beds in the county. The evidence presented at the final hearing failed to demonstrate any geographic or other barriers to accessing acute care services that would warrant the expenditure proposed by WUESTHOFF to construct the proposed project. Indeed, WUESTHOFF’s own evidence was clear that every resident of Brevard County has access to a general acute care hospital within a maximum drive time of 30-40 minutes and, in almost all instances, to two different acute care facilities within a 30-40 minute drive time. WUESTHOFF contends that its proposed 50-bed general acute care hospital is needed for four reasons: (1) to provide a high quality alternative inpatient health care provider in south Brevard County; (2) to introduce competition into the south Brevard area; (3) to enhance access to care to Medicaid, charity, and indigent population, as well as to enhance access for the managed care segment of the population; and (4) to enable WUESTHOFF to remain competitive in the marketplace. The evidence is clear that HRMC provides high quality inpatient health care in south Brevard County. See Findings 30- 44, infra. In addition, WUESTHOFF already serves some patients, residing in south Brevard County, and so does Sebastian River Medical Center, located in the adjacent county to the south. The evidence also is clear that there already is competition for inpatient hospital services in south Brevard County. HRMC serves a much greater percentage of those patients primarily due to its location and the high quality and low costs of HRMC’s services. In view of the excess capacity of hospital beds in the county, it does not make sense to add a satellite WUESTHOFF hospital in south Brevard County that would duplicate the services of the existing providers. WUESTHOFF also attempted to show that its proposed acute care hospital was needed in order to provide services for managed care participants. However, WUESTHOFF failed to offer any competent evidence to show that participants in managed care programs are a traditionally underserved population group and did not prove that WUESTHOFF’s ability to participate in managed care networks is a valid basis for determining the need of additional acute care services in south Brevard County. To the contrary, the evidence tended to show that the expansion of managed care programs would result in a decrease in the utilization of inpatient acute care services. Furthermore, there is no barrier to WUESTHOFF’s participating in managed care programs with one or more facilities in the southern portion of Brevard County, and in fact WUESTHOFF has aligned itself with Sebastian River Medical Center in a number of managed care contracts serving residents of southern Brevard County. While WUESTHOFF is offering a larger discount to managed care payers, its charges are higher, resulting in net revenue per managed care case that is still higher than HRMC’s. The price the managed care providers pay to HRMC is actually 14 percent lower than what they pay to WUESTHOFF. Not only does HRMC provide a better “deal” to managed care payers, but HRMC’s managed care volume is also greater than WUESTHOFF’s, indicating HRMC’s willingness to negotiate and work with managed care companies. At the time WUESTHOFF submitted its CON application, the penetration of managed care in Brevard County was approximately 8.6 percent. However, more recent data from 1996 shows a significant increase in the penetration of managed care to 15 percent, without the allegedly needed new hospital. A primary thrust of WUESTHOFF’s case for the need for its proposed project was that patients in the southern portion of Brevard County cannot be admitted into HRMC’s Palm Bay facility because its physicians do not enjoy staff privileges at that facility. Each hospital establishes criterion for staff privileges. In order to be eligible for staff privileges, it is normally required that the physician reside or have his or her office within certain geographic boundaries surrounding the hospital. The primary reason for such requirement is to ensure that the physician is capable of responding to patient needs within a time certain and that the physician will be able to provide coverage for his or her patients admitted into a facility. Dr. Arnold, a physician with staff privileges at WUESTHOFF who operates an office in West Melbourne, conceded that if his physician group associated with a physician living within HRMC’s geographic boundaries who was able to meet response time criteria, the physician group could admit patients into HRMC. Dr. Arnold also conceded that his physician group is not eligible for staff privileges at other Brevard hospitals, based on geographic considerations. The Availability, Quality Of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent Of Utilization, And Adequacy Of Like And Existing Health Care Services In The Service District: Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. There is no need for another hospital in South Brevard County. The county already has more than enough hospitals. Even in light of a 27-29 percent increase in population, utilization of Brevard County hospitals has dropped 10 percent in the last five years. There has been a marked shift in the Brevard County area away from inpatient services toward outpatient services. That shift is still growing. HRMC is the only hospital in Brevard County which has been nationally recognized for quality care by the National Research Corporation. According to AHCA’s hospital report card, HRMC was shown to be a consistent, low-charge provider, operating within the expected range of outcomes. According to a study done by AHCA, HRMC performs as one of the top five hospitals in Florida for reducing overall C-section births and increasing vaginal births after Cesarean (“VBAC”). This is important because vaginal births are safer for both mother and baby and save approximately $3,000 per delivery when compared with Cesarean births. HRMC has the lowest Cesarean Section rate and the highest VBAC rate in Brevard County and is one of the five lowest charging hospitals in the State for these services. Wuesthoff, on the other hand, has some of the highest costs in the county for these services. HRMC is providing efficient hospital services when compared with WUESTHOFF and other markets where competition is a factor. Of the zip codes addressed in WUESTHOFF’s travel study, there is no zip code in Brevard County that is more than 30 minutes from an existing hospital. Of the fourteen intersections tested, the addition of the proposed project would decrease travel times from only three intersections, with the greatest decrease in travel time being only nine minutes. Thus, the construction of WUESTHOFF’s proposed facility would not significantly increase access for Brevard County patients. HRMC delivers the majority of Medicaid babies in the county and is also a contract provider for Children’s Medical Services. HRMC worked with the Public Health Department to develop a better system for giving prenatal care and delivery to Medicaid and indigent mothers. HRMC offered to subsidize the salary of a doctor, and eventually two midwives, to work with the Public Health Department for this purpose. HRMC’s HOPE programs provides access to Medicaid and indigent patients. HOPE clinic and HOPE van expenses are direct expenses of HRMC. In addition to medical care, the HOPE program also provides free medication to those who cannot afford it. HRMC’s HOPE van provides services to the homeless every Tuesday, seeing as many as 40 patients each visit. Patients are provided with an examination, medications, and referrals to specialists or the hospital, if necessary. This care is provided at no charge to the patient. HRMC’s HOPE program was given the Nova award by the American Hospital Association for its ground-breaking effort in community health improvement. It is the only program in Florida which has been so recognized. The HOPE program has also received the Heartland Award from Governor Chiles for its work at improving the status of life in Florida. HRMC supports a variety of agencies to provide care to indigent AIDS patients. HRMC provides services to a nonprofit outpatient AIDS services organization, which offers reduced-rate and free lab services. HRMC, along with the Public Health Unit, funded a dental clinic for the AIDS organization. The hospitals in Brevard County do a good job in regard to taking care of the patients who are incapable of paying, with HRMC going the extra mile to provide services to the poor. There was no evidence that persons in need of quality, general acute care services are not able to access those services at any existing provider in Brevard County. There is no lack of availability or access to general acute care services based on either geographic or financial grounds. WUESTHOFF’s proposed 50- bed general acute care hospital is not needed to accomplish this. The Ability Of The Applicant To Provide Quality Of Care And The Applicant’s Record Of Providing Quality Of Care: Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes. It is clear that WUESTHOFF is capable of providing quality inpatient health care services. However, it is found that HRMC is providing higher quality services (and at a lower cost). As shown in AHCA’s hospital report card, WUESTHOFF performed in the lowest 15 percent in the State in 5 of 6 serviced lines where mortality was measured. On the other hand, HRMC was indicated to be consistently a low-charge provider, operating within expected outcomes. HRMC’s C-section rate is significantly lower than WUESTHOFF’s, and its VBAC rate much higher. The results of a low C-section rate are lower lengths of stay and less risk to both mom and baby. The Availability And Adequacy Of Other Health Care Facilities And Services In The District Which May Serve As Alternatives For The Services To Be Provided By The Applicant: Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. WUESTHOFF already has three home health locations, 8 or walk-in clinics, a hospice, a durable medical equipment business, an ambulatory surgery center, 2 freestanding diagnostic centers, and outpatient labs in Brevard County. In addition, WUESTHOFF plans to construct a new outpatient and diagnostic center in south Brevard County. In addition, inpatient surgeries have shifted to private, for-profit outpatient centers and ambulatory surgery centers that have opened in the last five years in Brevard County. The competent, substantial evidence presented at the final hearing demonstrates that within Brevard County, there are available and adequate alternatives to the inpatient services proposed by WUESTHOFF. First, as discussed above, the existing providers of acute inpatient health care services have capacity to absorb any increase in the utilization of acute care services in the County. Second, data introduced at the final hearing demonstrate that overall utilization for the types of services WUESTHOFF proposes to offer are declining and demonstrate that residents are seeking out alternatives to inpatient hospital services. For example, from 1993-1996, inpatient surgery services in Brevard County showed a marked decline of approximately 20 percent, both in number of patients and procedures. This trend is not unique to Brevard County, but is occurring throughout the state. Health care providers are seeking alternatives to hospitalization, with procedures being performed in physician offices and ambulatory surgical centers. Likewise, there has been a decline in utilization of several other services WUESTHOFF is proposing for its 50-bed hospital. During the period 1993-1996, while the population of Brevard County was growing at a rate of approximately 2.4 percent per year, the rate of obstetric admissions as a percentage of admissions to Brevard hospitals declined. There is excess capacity for pediatric and obstetrical services in Brevard County. The average daily census in obstetrical beds has dropped from approximately 34 patients per day to approximately 29 per day. With 66 reported available obstetrical beds in Brevard County, that means that on any day only 44 percent of the available capacity is being utilized. Likewise, pediatric census has gone from approximately 32 patients per day to only about 25. With 78 reported pediatrics beds, a demand for only 25 beds means that approximately 32 percent of available capacity is utilized. Probable Economies And Improvements In Service That May Be Derived From Operation Of Joint, Cooperative, Or Shared Health Care Resources: Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes. WUESTHOFF does not propose the operation of a joint, cooperative, or shared program with any other entity. WUESTHOFF contends that its application is consistent with this criterion because it proposes the sharing of certain resources with its main facility. But the construction of a satellite facility will result in the duplication of certain services. It is actually less efficient for a hospital to operate two campuses. The Need in the Service District for Special Equipment and Services Which Are Not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas: Section 408.035(1)(f), Florida Statutes. WUESTHOFF’s CON application does not propose to provide special equipment. This criterion is not met. The Need For Research And Educational Facilities, Health Care Practitioners, And Doctors Of Osteopathy And Medicine At The Student, Internship, And Residency Training Levels: Section 408.035(1)(g), Florida Statutes. This need is already being met in the community. WUESTHOFF, HRMC, and other Brevard County hospitals are already active in community training programs through their links with Brevard Community College and the University of Central Florida. HRMC has institutional training programs with the University of Florida, all Children’s Hospital, the local vo- tech, and University of Central Florida, in addition to other community programs. The Immediate And Long-Term Financial Feasibility Of The Proposal: Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes. The immediate financial feasibility of a proposed project is satisfied by showing that the applicant has adequate financial resources to fund the capital costs of the project and the financial ability to fund short-term operating losses. WUESTHOFF has demonstrated that its proposed project is financially feasible in the short-term. Long-term financial feasibility is established by demonstrating that projected revenues can be attained in light of the projected utilization of the proposed service and average length of stay. WUESTHOFF has not demonstrated that it can achieve its projected revenues by the second year of operation and has, therefore, failed to demonstrate long-term financial feasibility. It is impossible to tell from the information contained in WUESTHOFF’s CON application 8597 what the revenues and expenses of the new hospital will be. Staffing and supply costs associated with the ancillary building, but which will be used by the hospital when constructed and which amount to millions of dollars, are not broken out in the application. The application also does not show the totality of the costs associated with the 50-bed hospital WUESTHOFF seeks to establish. For example, provision for bad debt expense does not appear in the application, nor does the indigent care tax expense. Furthermore, the application does not provide for any administrative staff for the new hospital, nor has all other necessary staff been provided for. If these positions are included under “other,” then the salary expense projected is not enough. Also, the salaries listed on Schedule 6 do not include benefits. The preopening expenses figure shown in WUESTHOFF’s application is reasonable only if the entire facility, the ancillary, outpatient, and inpatient tower would open all at the same time. It is very difficult to analyze the reasonableness of the financial projections because the revenues and expenses do not match. All the revenue from the proposed new facility appears to be included, but not all of the expenses. Schedule 8A shows that daily ancillary expenses are $470 at WUESTHOFF’s existing hospital but only $82 at the new, proposed hospital. It is implausible that the new hospital would have costs this much lower than the existing hospital. WUESTHOFF’s staffing projections do not account for a significant number of nursing and other staff necessary for the operation of the facility as a hospital. The projections only address nursing positions for the 50-bed, inpatient tower. The schedule fails to show those nurses assigned to the ancillary services areas in the outpatient diagnostic center who will be working with inpatients. For example, the scrub nurses in the emergency department who will be working on inpatients are not included in the schedule, and the nurses working in radiology who will be caring for inpatients are not shown. The schedule fails to include a director of nursing at the proposed hospital facility. Although WUESTHOFF claimed that it will assign a director of nursing when patient volumes reach 50%, it failed to include projections for that position in this second year projections, even though patient volumes are projected to reach 50% in the second year. Wuesthoff also failed to include benefits in its computation of salaries on Schedule 6, even though it expects to pay benefits at a rate of 20% of salary. Interest expenses are also significantly understated. The project is financed with 100 percent debt, which should amount to an interest expense of approximately $850,000.00 per year. However, the application shows interest in year one as $197,000.00 and for year two, $393,000.00. It is unusual that interest would be higher in year two than year one. There is no way to tell from looking at the schedules or assumptions in the application what the utilization of the new hospital will be, or how the patient days break out by payor. Therefore, reasonableness of the financial projections cannot be tested. Without additional information, one cannot determine if the average charges projected are reasonable. There are unusual projections, such as the charges during construction, year one, and year two, in the application which without explanation are not reasonable. The financial projections as to the whole facility are unreasonable. They show that WUESTHOFF, which currently makes $7 or $8 million dollars each year, will lose money once the new facility is open but that, in its second year, the new facility will make $6.9 million. Such a projection is unreasonable. By focusing only on the incremental effect of adding an inpatient tower to a presumed existing DTC, WUESTHOFF’s financial projections are not sufficient to allow a conclusion to be drawn as to the financial feasibility of the new 50-bed hospital. However, it would appear that, if those schedules had been presented, they would have shown the new satellite hospital, taken in its entirety, not to be financially feasible in the long term. The Special Needs Of Health Maintenance Organizations: Section 408.035(1)(j), Florida Statutes. The application is not made on behalf of an HMO, and this criterion is not applicable. The Needs And Circumstances Of Those Entities Which Provide A Substantial Portion Of Their Services Or Resources, Or Both, To Individuals Not Residing In The District: Section 408.035(1)(k), Florida Statutes. The CON application does not address serving a substantial number of persons or providing a substantial portion of services to individuals residing outside the district, and this criterion is not applicable. The Probable Impact Of The Proposed Project On The Costs Of Providing Health Services Proposed By The Applicant, Including The Effect On Competition: Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. There is significant competition for managed care services in Brevard County. HRMC seeks and desires to enter into managed care contracts and is as competitive in the managed care arena as WUESTHOFF is. In fact, HRMC’s managed-care, patient volume is higher than WUESTHOFF’s. Managed care penetration in Brevard County has increased over the last five years and especially in the last two years. One particular HMO in Brevard County that is just getting started has received an acceptable managed care offer from HRMC. If they did not receive an acceptable offer from WUESTHOFF. Brevard County does not need another inpatient facility to allow the County to achieve higher levels of managed care penetration. There are no barriers in Brevard County to increasing HMO and other managed care penetration. Even though HRMC has an 82 percent market share in South Brevard County, that by itself does not indicate HRMC is charging non-competitive prices. In fact, HRMC’s charges are much lower than WUESTHOFF’s. Both the State of Florida and the FTC found that HRMC’s merger with Cape Canaveral when Health First was formed did not create an adverse, competitive effect on the marketplace. Because HRMC’s charges are so much lower than WUESTHOFF’s, the addition of the proposed hospital would not introduce price competition into the market. The majority of the proposed hospital’s patients are likely to come from South Brevard County-–an area where HRMC has an 82.5 percent market share. Thus, the bulk of the proposed hospital’s patients will come from HRMC. If the proposed hospital meets its projected utilization, HRMC stands to lose somewhere between $4 and $5 million a year. While that loss may not put HRMC into bankruptcy, it will have a significant adverse effect. The Costs And Methods Of The Proposed Construction And The Availability Of Alternative, Less Costly, Or More Effective Methods Of Construction: Section 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes. WUESTHOFF’s proposal to establish a 50-bed, general, acute care hospital entails the construction of a 3-story, 50-bed patient tower adjoining an outpatient diagnostic center. The outpatient diagnostic center, and not the inpatient tower, will encompass virtually all of the ancillary services necessary for WUESTHOFF to obtain a license to operate its facility as a hospital. As more fully discussed below, WUESTHOFF’s proposed 50- bed inpatient hospital will require substantial design modification and increased square footage in order to obtain licensure as a general, acute care hospital. The Applicant’s Past And Proposed Provision Of Health Care Services To Medicaid Patients And The Medically Indigent: Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. The evidence showed that all acute care hospitals in Brevard County provide a fair level of Medicaid and indigent care in comparison to the remainder of the state. In its CON application, WUESTHOFF proposes to condition approval of its 50- bed, general, acute care hospital on providing 15 percent Medicaid and charity care, but did not provide a breakdown of each. There was no documented access problems for Medicaid or indigent patients that would warrant a new health care facility. Because indigent care is reported to the State based on a hospital’s charges, WUESTHOFF and HRMC could be doing the same amount of indigent care, but WUESTHOFF could appear to be doing more because its charges are higher. Whether Less Costly, More Efficient, Or More Appropriate Alternatives To The Proposed Inpatient Services Are Available: Section 408.035(2)(a), Florida Statutes. HRMC’s average charges are significantly lower than WUESTHOFF’s on both a per case and per patient day basis. HRMC’s costs are also lower, indicating it is more efficient. Therefore, the addition of another less-efficient, higher- charging WUESTHOFF hospital into the market would be more costly and less efficient than what it is there now. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that denial of WUESTHOFF’s proposed 50-bed, general acute care hospital is the least costly, more efficient, and appropriate alternative. The existing providers of acute care services in Brevard County are operating efficiently and have unused capacity that is available to serve Brevard residents. Data suggests that while the population of Brevard County is growing, there is no corresponding increase in utilization of general, acute care services. While Brevard enjoys a proportionately higher growth rate than the rest of the State, the growth does not translate into higher utilization of general acute care services. Further, the age 65+ population, those most likely to use hospital services, has experienced an annual growth of approximately 3.7 percent between 1990-1996, which is higher than the overall rate of growth for Brevard. While there has been a significant growth in the number of elderly and Medicaid eligible population, only approximately percent of those eligible for Medicaid in the 14 zip codes targeted as the service area of WUESTHOFF’s proposed hospital actually use hospital services. In 1993, the last year of available data, the actual county-wide use rate for Medicaid eligible residents was only 8.4 percent. This is expected to remain constant in subsequent years, as the demand for inpatient acute care services has not increased, but has in fact decreased. There is insufficient utilization of the inpatient acute care services which already exist in Brevard County, with approximately 50 percent of the available beds unoccupied. The addition of another health care facility will not improve access, improve delivery of services, or make services available to a population that is not presently being adequately and appropriately served by existing providers. In a market where inpatient volume is going down, length of stay is going down, and utilization is going down, it does not make sense to spend scarce dollars on new inpatient services. Whether The Existing Facilities Providing Similar Inpatient Services Are Being Used In An Appropriate And Efficient Manner: Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The greater weight of the evidence established that there is available capacity for inpatient services like those proposed by WUESTHOFF at the existing, general, acute care facilities in Brevard County. WUESTHOFF did not demonstrate that any provider is suffering from over utilization or that any patient has not been able to access general acute care services when such services were necessary. On the contrary, there was a consensus among the experts, even WUESTHOFF’s experts, that there is no problem with geographic or financial access to existing providers. Between 1993 and 1996, hospital utilization dropped from 63 percent to 52 percent. AT WUESTHOFF’s Rockledge campus, utilization fell from a high of 63 percent in 1993, to approximately 46 percent in 1996. During this same period, the population of Brevard County grew at a rate of approximately 2.4 percent per year, which was proportionately higher than for the rest of the state. At HRMC, its occupancy dropped, but not quite as dramatically. Between 1993 and 1996, HRMC’s occupancy went from 67 percent to approximately 62 percent. The satellite facility, operated by HRMC in Palm Bay and located in the same service area where WUESTHOFF proposes to construct its 50-bed general acute care hospital, has never experienced occupancy above 31 percent. That Patients Will Experience Serious Problems In Obtaining Inpatient Care Of The Type Proposed, In The Absence Of The Proposed New Service: Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes. There was no evidence to show that any population group in Brevard County is unable to access quality health care services at any of the subdistrict’s existing facilities. Further, WUESTHOFF failed to establish that its proposed facility was needed to provide general acute care services not currently provided or currently accessible to residents of south Brevard County. WUESTHOFF maintains that participants in managed care contracts may not be able to access WUESTHOFF’s general acute care services without approval of the proposed project, but there was not demonstration that those individuals would not otherwise have access to quality affordable health care in Brevard County. WUESTHOFF also failed to demonstrate that participants in managed care programs are a “traditionally underserved” population group for a determination of need under not normal circumstances. CON Application Content And Procedures: Section 408.037, Florida Statutes And Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code. The parties stipulated as to the timeliness of the submission of WUESTHOFF’s Letter of Intent, initial CON application and response to omissions. However, the board resolution required by Section 408.037, Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.008, Florida Administrative Code, is fatally defective. The applicant is required to provide certification that its governing board enacted a resolution to license and operate the proposed facility. In this case, the proposed 50- bed, inpatient tower cannot be licensed by the applicant as a hospital. In order to obtain hospital licensure, the proposed project would necessarily include the $35+ million that WUESTHOFF proposes to spend on its outpatient diagnostic center. WUESTHOFF’s CON application also fails to comply with Section 408.037(2)(c), which requires detailed financial projection including a statement of the revenues and expense for the period of construction and the first two years of operation after completion of the project. The proposed project is a “hospital.” The hospital will report all of the revenues and expenses of the inpatient and outpatients to the state in its actual report, and those same projected revenues and expenses should be in the pro forma of a certificate of need application for a new hospital project. Instead, the projected revenues and expenses in the pro formas take an “incremental” approach and focus only on the 50-bed tower and an unspecified portion of the diagnostic center. WUESTHOFF’s own financial expert admitted that one cannot determine the revenues and expenses of the new hospital from the information contained in the application. AHCA does not have sufficient information with respect to revenues and expenditures in the pro formas to determine the financial feasibility of the hospital project. The pro formas do not meet the statutory requirement contained in 408.037(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and are fatally defective. Neither AHCA nor its predecessor agency ever have approved a CON to establish a hospital without ever seeing projections of the revenues and expenses of the hospital as a whole. Additions to hospitals have been approved on a strictly incremental basis; but, in those cases, the revenues and expenses of the hospital as a whole already had been reviewed and approved. Inpatient cardiac catheterization programs also have been approved, based on a strictly incremental review of the financial impact of converting from an existing outpatient to an inpatient program. But there is a meaningful difference between the approval of a program in a hospital facility that already has been reviewed and approved as a whole and what WUESTHOFF is seeking to have done in this case. There also is a difference between treating the costs of an existing and operating facility or program as being “sunk” and treating the $35 million capital cost and additional operating costs of the proposed DTC in this case as being “sunk.” In the former, the costs have been or are being spent and truly are “sunk”; in the latter, despite WUESTHOFF’s assurances, the DTC money has not been spent, and the DTC has not been established. Indeed, the decision properly before AHCA in this case is whether those expenditures should be made for purposes of establishing a hospital. If not, the hospital should not be approved. If WUESTHOFF still wants to build and operate its proposed $35 million anyway, as it has assured AHCA that it will do, it is free to do so. Criteria Used In Evaluation Of CON Applications: Rule 59C-1.030, Florida Administrative Code. AHCA’s rules set forth additional criteria used to evaluate CON applications which focus on whether there is a need for the proposed service in the population to be served and whether the proposed project is accessible to those in need of the service. The evidence in this case showed that there was no unmet need in Brevard County for inpatient, general, acute care services and that the target population is adequately served by the existing providers of general acute care services. Furthermore, the evidenced showed that the anticipated population growth in Brevard County is not likely to generate additional numbers of inpatient admissions, based on the decline in utilization during a period when Brevard County was experiencing unprecedented annual growth at a rate of 2.4 percent overall and 3.7 percent in the 65+ population. Any attendant increase in demand for inpatient general acute care services can be easily accommodated by the existing providers in Brevard County. The rule also examines the extent to which an applicant provides services to Medicare, Medicaid, and the medically indigent patients. The evidence showed that WUESTHOFF provides a fair amount of general acute care services to Medicare, Medicaid, and charity patients, as do the other existing providers in Brevard County. Hospital Physical Plant Requirements For Licensure: Rule 59A-3, Florida Administrative Code. WUESTHOFF’s 50-bed, general, acute care hospital, as proposed, cannot meet licensure standards without significant adjustment to the design to bring it into compliance with the licensure rules. Rule 59A-3.081(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code, specifically requires that the critical care nurse’s station be situated so that nurses have visual control of each patient from common spaces. The schematics provided by WUESTHOFF indicate that there is no visual control of two patient rooms located in the northwest end of the unit. As to functionality of the space, there is no observation from the nurses station to trauma rooms located at the end of the unit and inadequate proximity to support spaces, such as soiled and clean utility and med prep, to the trauma rooms. Seriously injured patients would necessarily be transported up to surgery through what would be public corridor spaces in order to access elevators and then through additional public spaces on the second floor. Inpatient access to the CT scan room and MRI room appears to be made through a narrow, 5-foot wide corridor. Hospital licensure regulations require inpatient access through an 8-foot corridor. The only 8-foot corridors available for inpatient use, the service corridor off the housekeeping and staff facilities area to the rear of the unit and the corridor located between radiology and dietary, do not appear to be appropriate means for inpatients to access these rooms. On the third floor of the facility, WUESTHOFF proposes to locate an aerobics and exercise room, directly above the second floor patient recovery area and two of the operating rooms. With an exercise area located above such critical areas, there is the possibility that vibrations would transmit to operating room lights, ceiling mounted microscopes, and other instruments. It would be costly to sufficiently stiffen the structure to minimize vibrations. In order to bring the proposed project into compliance with hospital licensure regulations, material changes to the plans must be made, which will necessarily increase the square footage of the facility. The square footage of the facility would likely be increased by approximately 5,000 square feet, and many of the areas would have to be significantly redesigned to accommodate concerns with compliance to ADA and hospital licensure regulations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter the final order denying WUESTHOFF’s CON 8597. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: David C. Ashburn, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli and Stewart, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 830 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone and Hines, P.A. Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Blank, Rigsby & Meenan 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Which, if any, of the four certificate of need applications for short-term psychiatric beds in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 9 should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Description of the Parties The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") is the agency charged under Chapter 381, Florida Statutes (1991), to make decisions regarding certificate of need ("CON") applications. HRS issued its intent to approve the CON applications of Glenbeigh Hospital of Palm Beach, Inc. ("Glenbeigh"), for 45 beds, and Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. ("Boca"), for 15 beds, pursuant to a published fixed need for 67 beds for HRS District IX. HRS also issued its intent to deny the CON applications of Wellington Regional Medical Center, Incorporation ("Wellington") to convert 15 acute care beds to 15 short term adult psychiatric beds, and Savannas Hospital Limited Partnership ("Savannas") to convert 20 substance abuse beds to 20 short term adult psychiatric beds and to add 10 new short term adult beds. District IX includes Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee and Indian River Counties. As a result of Glenbeigh's Notice of Withdrawal filed on April 6, 1993, CON No. 6438 is no longer under consideration in this case. Boca is an existing 394-bed acute care hospital, located one mile north of the Broward County line, and is the applicant for CON No. 6442, to convert 15 medical/surgical beds to 15 adult psychiatric beds, and to delicense an additional 6 medical/surgical beds. Wellington is an existing acute care hospital in Palm Beach County, with 104 acute care medical/surgical beds and 16 substance abuse beds, and is the applicant for CON No. 6441 to convert 15 acute care beds to 15 short term adult psychiatric beds. Savannas is an existing 70 bed child/adolescent and adult psychiatric and substance abuse hospital in St. Lucie County, about 40 miles north of Palm Beach, and is the applicant for CON No. 6444, to convert its 20 substance abuse beds to 20 adult short-term psychiatric beds, and to add 10 new adult short-term psychiatric beds. Lake Hospital and Clinic, Inc., d/b/a Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches ("Lake"), at the time of hearing, was a 98-bed psychiatric and substance abuse hospital, with 46 adult psychiatric beds, 36 child/adolescent psychiatric beds and 16 substance abuse beds, located in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, between Boca Raton and West Palm Beach. The parties stipulated that Lake had standing to challenge the Boca application. Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, Inc., d/b/a Humana Hospital Palm Beaches ("Humana") is an existing 250-bed acute care hospital, with 61 adult and 27 child/adolescent psychiatric beds, and is a Baker Act receiving facility, located directly across the street from Glenbeigh in Palm Beach. Florida Residential Treatment Centers, Inc., d/b/a Charter Hospital of West Palm Beach ("Charter") is an existing 60-bed psychiatric hospital with 20 beds for children and 40 beds for adolescents, located approximately 15 minutes travel time from Glenbeigh. Martin H.M.A., Inc., d/b/a SandyPines Hospital ("SandyPines") is an existing 60 bed child and adolescent psychiatric hospital, and a Baker Act receiving facility, located in Martin County, less than one mile north of the Palm Beach County line. By prehearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the statutory review criteria applicable to the CON application of Boca are those listed in Subsections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (d), (f), (i) - (l) and (n). If Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o) is applicable, the parties stipulated that the disputed criteria are those in Subsections 4.g. and 5.g. Background and Applicability of HRS Rules and Florida Statutes Rule 10-5.011(o) and (p), Florida Administrative Code, was in effect at the time HRS published the fixed need pool and received the applications at issue in this proceeding, the September 1990 batching cycle. The rule distinguished between inpatient psychiatric services based on whether the services were provided on a short-term or long-term basis. Similarly, Rule 10- 5.011(q), Florida Administrative Code, distinguished between short-term and long-term hospital inpatient substance abuse services. On August 10, 1990, HRS published a fixed need pool for 19 short-term psychiatric beds in HRS District IX, with notice of the right to seek an administrative hearing to challenge the correctness of the fixed need pool number. See, Vol. 16, No. 32, Florida Administrative Weekly. On August 17, 1990, HRS published a revised fixed need pool for a net need of 67 additional short-term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in HRS District IX, based on the denial of a certificate of need application, subsequent to the deadline for submission of the August 10th publication. The local health plan formula, which has not been adopted by rule, allocates 62 of the additional 67 beds needed to the Palm Beach County subdistrict. The revised pool publication did not include notice of the right to an administrative hearing to challenge the revised pool number. See, Vol. 16, No. 33, Florida Administrative Weekly. There were no challenges filed to either the original or revised fixed need pool numbers. On December 23, 1990, HRS published new psychiatric and substance abuse rules, subsequently renumbered as Rule 10-5.040 and 10-5.041, Florida Administrative Code. These new rules abolished the distinction between short- term and long-term services, and instead distinguished psychiatric and substance abuse services by the age of the patient. Pursuant to Section 14 of the new psychiatric rule, that rule does not apply to applications pending final agency action on the effective date of the new rule. HRS will, however, license any applicant approved from the September 1990 batching cycle to provide services to adults or children and adolescents, using the categories in the new rule, not based on the distinction between short and long term services which existed at the time the application was filed. Approved providers will receive separate CONs for adult and child/adolescent services. Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the fixed need pool shall be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly at least 15 days prior to the letter of intent deadline and . . . shall not be changed or adjusted in the future regardless of any future changes in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors which would lead to different projections of need, if retroactively applied. Humana, Lake, Charter and SandyPines allege that HRS incorrectly determined need under the old rule, by failing to examine occupancy rates pursuant to that rule. The rule provided, in relevant part, No additional short term inpatient hospital adult psychiatric beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds in a service district is at or exceeds 75 percent for the preceding 12 month period. No additional beds for adolescents and children under 18 years of age shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adolescent and children short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in the Department district is at or exceeds 70 percent for the preceding 12 month period. Hospitals seeking additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds must show evidence that the occupancy standard defined in paragraph six is met and that the number of designated short term psychiatric beds have had an occupancy rate of 75 percent or greater for the preceding year. (Emphasis added.) Rule 10-5.011(o)4(e), Florida Administrative Code. HRS' expert witness, Elizabeth Dudek, testified that the fixed need pool for 67 additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds was calculated pursuant to the formula in Rule 10-5.011(l)(o), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Dudek also testified that since calculation resulted in a positive number, according to HRS policy, the publication of the fixed need pool indicates that the occupancy prerequisites must have also been met. To the contrary, the State Agency Action Report and the deposition of Lloyd Tribley, the HRS Health Facilities consultant who collected the data to support the publication of the fixed need pool, indicate that he did not determine existing occupancy separately for adults and for children/adolescents, as required by subsection (e) of the old rule. Rather, he determined, pursuant to subsection (f), that overall occupancy rates for licensed short-term psychiatric beds exceeded 75 percent. With the August 10, 1990 publication of the need for 19 additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds, HRS provided a point of entry to challenge the published need, including the agency's apparent failure to make a determination of existing occupancy rates for separate age categories. No challenge was filed. In the August 17, 1990 publication, HRS failed to provide a point of entry, when it added 48 more beds to the pool as a result of the issuance of a final order denying a prior CON application. The August 10th publication of numeric need, according to HRS' representative should have been based on an analysis of separate and combined occupancy rates. There was no challenge to that publication, therefore the number of beds in the fixed need pool is not at issue in this proceeding. Like and Existing Facilities Humana, Lake and Charter assert that, as a result of the new rule abolishing separate licensure categories for short-term and long-term beds, all psychiatric providers within an applicant's service district are like and existing facilities. These parties also assert that there was not, even under the old rule, any practical difference between these categories of providers, particularly for children/adolescents. In support of this position, the evidence demonstrated that the average lengths of stay in short-term and long- term adolescent psychiatric beds in 1989 were 48.1 days and 53.02 days, respectively. In 1990, the average lengths of stay in short and long-term beds were 41.8 days and 41.9 days, respectively. The parties asserting that the effect of the new rule is to create an additional group of like and existing providers point to HRS' response to the application of Indian River Memorial Hospital in Vero Beach, Florida ("Indian River"). According to the testimony of HRS expert witness Elizabeth Dudek, Indian River was another District 9 applicant in this same batching cycle. Indian River applied for a CON to convert long-term psychiatric beds to short- term psychiatric beds. HRS denied the CON application of Indian River because, under the new rule, which had taken effect before the decisions on the batch were made, Indian River would receive a new license permitting it to treat psychiatric patients regardless of their projected lengths of stay. Glenbeigh asserted that the numeric need for 67 additional short term psychiatric beds cannot be challenged in this proceeding based on the failure of any party timely to challenge the August 10, 1990, publication of need. Similarly, Glenbeigh asserted that the comparison of "like and existing" facilities must be limited to those used in the inventory to compute need. Glenbeigh relied generally on Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.011(o), the old rule governing short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services, for the proposition that "like and existing" in Subsection 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is equivalent to the inventory of licensed and approved beds for short term psychiatric services, which was used in the computation of need. However, the rule also provides, in a list of "other standards and criteria to be considered in determining approval of a certificate of need application for short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds," the following, Applicants shall indicate the availability of other inpatient psychiatric services in the proposed service area, including the number of beds available in crisis stabilization units, short term residential treatment programs, and other inpatient beds whether licensed as a hospital facility or not. In light of the rule directive that the consideration of like and existing services is not limited to licensed provider hospitals, Glenbeigh's assertion that the statutory review criteria is more restrictive and limited to the licensed and approved beds that were used to compute numeric need is rejected. The like and existing facilities are the hospitals or freestanding facilities which are authorized to provide the same psychiatric services, as the applicants seek to provide as a result of this proceeding. It was established at hearing that the following list of District 9 facilities provide psychiatric services comparable to those which the three remaining applicants seek to provide in these consolidated cases: DISTRICT 9 Hospital PSYCHIATRIC BEDS SUBSTANCE ABUSE BEDS Adult Child and Adult Child and Adolescent Adolescent Lic. App. Lic. App. Lic. App. Lic. App. Bethesda Hospital 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charter Palm (IRTF) 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 Fair Oaks 36 0 49 0 14 0 3 0 Forty Fifth Street 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glenbeigh Palm Beach 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 0 Humana Palm Beach 61 0 27 15 0 0 0 0 Humana Sebastian 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Indian River Mem. 16 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 J.F. Kennedy Mem. 14 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 Lake Hospital 46 0 36 0 16 0 0 0 Lawnwood Regional 36 Res. Treat. Palm 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 (IRTF) 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 Sandy Pines 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 Savannas 35 0 15 0 20 0 0 0 St. Mary Hospital 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wellington Regional 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Vol. 16, No. 52, Florida Administrative Weekly, (December 28, 1990) (Humana Exhibit 26). Need For Additional Beds An analysis of need beyond that of the numeric need, requires an analysis of the availability and accessibility of the like and existing facilties. One reliable indicator of need is the occupancy levels in the like and existing facilities. In addition to providing guidelines for the publication of need, Rule 10-5.011(o)(4)(e) also mandates a consideration of occupancy levels to determine if applicants are or are not required to demonstrate "not normal circumstances" necessitating the issuance of a CON. For all child/adolescent psychiatric programs in District 9, the expert for Lake and Humana calculated total average occupancy rates at 57.6 percent in 1988, 64.2 percent in 1989, and 53.2 percent in 1990. In support of the accuracy of the expert's calculations, the District 9 Annual Report for 1990 (Lake Exhibit 4) shows occupancy at 46.80 percent in general hospitals, 88.22 percent in specialty hospitals then categorized as short term and 38.22 percent in specialty hospitals then categorized as long term. In addition, during this same period of time, average lengths of stay in District 9 child/adolescent beds also declined by approximately 10 percent. Using the guidelines of the old rule, new short term psychiatric beds should not normally be approved when the child/adolescent rate is below 70 percent. In the new rule, child/adolescent beds should not normally be approved if occupancy is below 75 percent. Therefore, under either rule, applicants who will be licensed for child/adolescent beds, must demonstrate not normal circumstances for their CON applications to be approved. The expert for Lake and Humana, also computed the adult occupancy rates for 1988-1990 in District 9 as follows: 1988- 66.5 percent; 1989 - 73.1 percent; 1990 - 68.5 percent. The occupancy rates for adult beds for the 12- month period ending March, 1990 was 70.6 percent and 69.2 percent for the twelve months ending June, 1990. In evaluating the accuracy of the expert's calculations of occupancy rates for adult beds, a comparison can be made to the District 9 Annual Report for 1990 (Lake Exhibit 4). Occupancy rates were 57.75 percent in general hospitals and 79.45 percent in specialty hospitals. This data does not include Indian River Memorial or Lawnwood Regional which were also listed on the December 1990 inventory of licensed adult beds, nor St. Mary's Hospital which was listed as having 40 approved adult beds. The comparison indicates the accuracy of concluding that the highest occupancy level for District 9 adult psychiatric beds during the period 1988 to 1990 was approximately 70 percent. Using the guidelines of the old rule, 75 percent occupancy is required before new adult beds can be approved unless there is a not normal circumstance. Boca's Proposal Boca Raton Community Hospital ("Boca") is a 394-bed not-for-profit acute care hospital, accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals and Health Organizations, which proposes to convert 21 of its medical/surgical to 15 adult psychiatric beds and to delicense an additional 6 acute care beds. Boca's CON would be conditioned on the provision of 10.8 percent total annual patient days to Medicaid patients and a minimum of 5 percent gross revenues generated, or 2 percent total annual patient days to medically indigent patients. Boca has proposed this alternative so that, if it fails to provide direct care to indigents, it may donate the revenues to further the objectives of the state and district mental health councils. Boca Raton Community Hospital Corporation has control and manages the Boca's property, policies and funds. The Boca Raton Community Hospital Foundation raises funds for Boca and has the funds necessary to accomplish the proposed project at a cost of $932,531. Boca's application asserts that a not normal circumstance exists in the need to serve Medicaid patients in the district, and that a need exists to serve geriatric psychiatric patients in an acute care hospital, due to their general medical condition. Medicaid reimbursement for psychiatric care is only available in acute care hospitals. Boca Historically serves in excess of 70 percent Medicare (geriatric) patients. In 1990, 72 percent of Medicaid psychiatric patients residing in Boca's service area sought psychiatric services outside District 9, as compared to the outmigration of 14.7 percent Medicare patients, and 11 percent commercial insurance patients. Boca supported its proposed 10.8 percent Medicaid CON condition, with evidence that 10.8 percent of all psychiatric discharges in its market area were for Medicaid patients. Boca's opponents dispute the claim that a disproportionate outmigration of District 9 Medicaid patients is, in and of itself, a not normal circumstance. Using the travel time standard for inpatient psychiatric services of 45 minutes under average driving conditions, the opponents argue that District 10 facilities should be considered as available alternatives to additional psychiatric beds in District 9. In fact, the parties stipulated that there are no geographic access problems in District 9. In contrast to the opponents position, Subsections 381.705(a), (b)(, (d), (f) and (h), Florida Statutes (1991), indicate that need, available alternatives and accessibility are evaluated within a district, as defined by Subsection 381.702(5). Therefore, using the statutory criteria as indicative of the situation which is normal, the disproportionate outmigration of medicaid patients can be considered a not normal circumstance with a showing of access hardships for this payor group. Boca's opponents also assert general acute care adult beds are adequate. In August 1991, the occupancy rate was 56.9 percent in the 171 licensed adult psychiatric beds in District 9 general acute care hospitals which are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Finally, Boca's opponents argue that Boca historically has not, and will not serve Medicaid patients in sufficient number to alter the outmigration. In 1990, Boca reported 671 Medicaid inpatient days from a total of 99,955. That is equivalent to 92 of the 16,170 admissions. Because Boca has a closed medical staff, only the psychiatrists on staff would be able to admit patients to a psychiatric unit. From the testimony and depositions received in evidence, Boca's psychiatrists who discussed their service to Medicaid patients treated less than 12 Medicaid patients a year. One psychiatrist, who had previously treated Medicaid patients at a mental health center, has been in private practice since 1983-84, but was not sure he had treated a Medicaid patient in his private practice and has received a new Medicaid provider number a few weeks prior to hearing. One Boca psychiatrist does not treat Medicaid patients on an inpatient basis. Two other Boca psychiatrists reported seeing 10 and "a couple" of Medicaid patients a year, respectively. The latter of these described the Medicaid billing procedure as cumbersome. Given the unavailability of Medicaid eligible beds in the District and the nature of the practices of its closed staff of psychiatrists, Boca has failed to establish that its CON application will alleviate the outmigration for psychiatric services of District 9 Medicaid patients. This conclusion is not altered by the subsequent closure of Lake's 46 adult psychiatric beds, because Medicaid reimbursement would not have been available at Lake which was not an acute care hospital. In fact, HRS takes the position that there are no not normal circumstances in this case. Wellington's Proposal Wellington, a 120 bed hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida, proposed to convert 15 acute care beds to 15 short term adult psychiatric beds which, if approved, will be licensed as adult psychiatric beds. Wellington's acute care beds are only 28 percent occupied. Wellington is located in the western portion of Palm Beach County, where no other inpatient psychiatric facilities are located. Wellington is a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. ("UHS"), accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals and Health Organizations (JCAHO) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), and offers clinical experience for students of the Southeastern College of Osteopathic Medicine (SECOM). Internships and externships for osteopathic students are also provided at Humana's psychiatric pavilion. Wellington proposes to fund the total project cost of $920,000 from funds available to UHS and intends to become a Baker Act receiving facility. Wellington is not a disproportionate share hospital, and projects 1 percent Medicaid service in its payor mix. Wellington proposes to serve adult psychiatric patients in 15 beds, and projects 53.3 percent and 70 percent occupancy in those beds in years one and two, but does not make a third year projection of at least 80 percent occupancy as required by Paragraph 4(d) of Rule 10-5.011(o). Because the average annual adult occupancy rate in the district is less than 75 percent, any applicant proposing to serve adults must demonstrate that a not normal circumstance exists for approval of its CON application. In addition, there appears to be no shortage of psychiatric beds in acute care hospitals in District 9. See Finding of Fact 39, supra. Not Normal Circumstance Wellington has not alleged nor demonstrated that any of the factors related to its current operations, location or proposed services are not normal circumstances in support of its CON application. Absent the showing of a not normal circumstance, Wellington's proposal cannot be approved, pursuant to Paragraph 4(e) and Rule 10-5.011(o), Florida Administrative Code. Savannas Proposal Savannas Hospital Limited partnership d/b/a Savannas Hospital ("Savannas") is a JCAHO accredited 70 bed psychiatric and substance abuse hospital located in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida, approximately 40 miles north of Palm Beach. Savannas, a Baker Act facility, proposes to convert all 20 of its licensed substance abuse beds to psychiatric beds and to add 10 new psychiatric beds, at a total project cost of $1,444,818. Savannas also proposes to commit to providing 7 percent indigent care. While not specifically describing its circumstances as not normal, Savannas does indicate that it is (1) the only applicant in the northern sub- district of District 9, and (2) could readmit to a segregated unit low functioning neurogeriatric patients of the type it previously served. Savannas also indicated that Medicare reimbursement is not available for patients who have substance abuse, rather than psychiatric primary diagnoses. As a freestanding provider, Savannas is not eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Savannas demonstrates what services it would provide, if its CON is approved, but fails to identify a need for the services by District 9 psychiatric patients. Within the northern sub-district, the only other facility in St. Lucie County, Lawnwood, reported an occupancy rate of 65 percent in 1989. AHCA also argued that the substance abuse beds at Savannas are needed and should not be converted to psychiatric beds. That position is supported by the fact that Savannas substance abuse beds had a higher occupancy level than its psychiatric beds in 1989. Savannas' application and the evidence presented do not support the need for the services proposed by Savannas, nor does Savannas assert that any not normal circumstances exist.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Certificate of Need Number 6438 to Glenbeigh Hospital of Palm Beach, Inc.; Certificate of Need Number 6442 to Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc.; Certificate of Need Number 6441 to Wellington Regional Medical Center, Inc.; and Certificate of Need Number 6444 to Savannas Hospital Limited Partnership. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of June 1993. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June 1993. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Humana Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 2. 3-6. Issues not addressed. 7-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 44 and 46. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 10. 11-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 13-15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 & 29. Issue not addressed. 20-21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 22. Issue not addressed. 23-24. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12 and Conclusions of Law 4. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected in Findings of Fact 12 and 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. Rejected in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. 38-47. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 44 and 47. Issue not addressed. Rejected in Finding of Fact 46. Issue not addressed. 52-54. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46 and 47. 55-57. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 54 Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 26, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 48, 54, 55 and 57. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 74-75. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 27. 76-77. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 82. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 82. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 37. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 39. Issue not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27 and 30. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27, 29 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 42. Issue not addressed. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 1. 95-99. Issues not addressed Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 102-114. Issues not addressed Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Issue not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 37. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10. 121-122. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 4 and 47. Issue not addressed. Irrlevant. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10 Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 10, 25, 47 and 48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 11. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47, 48 and 49. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 46. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47 and 48. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47 and 48. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 15. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47, 48 and 49. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 11. Lake Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 43. 11-12. Issues not addressed. 13-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27-43. 20-21. Issues not addressed. 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 27-28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 29-31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 32. Rejected in relevant part in Finding of Fact 13. 33. Issue not addressed. 34. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 35. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 36-37. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 38-39. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 40. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 41. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 30. 42-43. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. 44. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 45. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 46-47. Issues not addressed. 48. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 49-52. Issues not addressed. 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 42. 54-56. Issues not addressed. 57. Accepted in relevant part in Conclusions of Law 4. 58-59. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26 and in Conclusions of Law 4. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 65-66. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18, 27 and 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 39 and 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 39 and 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47, 48, 49, 53 and 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 84-89. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 92-97. Issues not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 37. 100-102. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47 and 48. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 111-113. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Adopted. Adopted. Accepted in relevant part. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 3 and 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. Issue not addressed. 128-132. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 133-135. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32 and 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. 150-151. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 152-156. Issues not addressed. 157-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 159. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. 160. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 161. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 162. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 163. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 164. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 165. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 166. Charter Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 1. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Adopted. 4-10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 12-15. Issues not addressed. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 18-19. Issues not addressed. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 21-25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 8. 26-38. Issues not addressed 39-40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 43-44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adoped in Conclusion of Law 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Issue not addressed. 52-53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 54-55. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 58-73. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 78-79. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 86-94. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 39 and 42. 99-101. Issues not addressed. 102. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 103-134. Issues not addressed. 135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 136-140. Issues not addressed. Boca Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 12. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 14. Adopted. 15-16. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 18. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 19. Issue not addressed. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 22. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 23. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 28-30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 34. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 36. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 37-42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 43-47. Issues not addressed. 48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. 49-50. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Issue not addressed. 53-54. Rejected in Finding of Fact 30. 55-56. Issues not addressed. 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 58-59. Issues not addressed. Rejected in Findings of Fact 39 and 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 64-65. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 35 and 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 34. Issue not addressed. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Issue not addressed. Adopted. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 81-82. Rejected in Finding of Fact 42. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25 and 42. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 89-97. Issues not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Rejected in Finding of Fact 42. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Sandy Pines 1. Issue not addressed. 2-3. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 4. Issue not addressed. 5. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 9. 6-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 9-13. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 20-24. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 9. 26-29. Issues not addressed. 30. Adopted. 31-33. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43, 48, 49 and 54. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Issue not addressed. 39-40. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 41-42. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 12 and 17. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 17. 46-47. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 48. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25 and 26. 49-50. Issues not addressed. Adopted. Adopted. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 42. 55-56. Issues not addressed. 57. Adopted. 58-59. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Conclusion of Law 3. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 62-64. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 67. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 22. 68-69. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. 70. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 71. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26 and in 72. Conclusion of Law 3. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 26 and 73. 38. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 25, 27 and 30. 74-75. Not legible. 76. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 77-80. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 81. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 82-83. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 84-95. Issues not addressed. Wellington 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 8-10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 13-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 44. 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 46. 21-22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 44 and 46. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. 27-28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 31-32. Issues not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Adopted. Issue not addressed. 36-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 38-42. Issues not addressed. 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34, 42 and 47. 44-63. Issues not addressed. 64-65. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. 66-67. Issues not addressed. 68. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 69-91. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 47. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. 94-103. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 1 and 44. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. 106-111. Issues not addressed 112. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25, 27 and 30. 113-115. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. Savannas Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 50. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 50. Adopted. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Rejected in Finding of Fact 56. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 51. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 30-33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 35-37. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Issue not addressed. 40-42. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. 44-48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50. 49-51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. Adopted. Adopted. 56-57. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50 Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. Issue not addressed. 60-61. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. 62-63. Issues not addressed. 64. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 65-66. Issues not addressed. 67. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. 68-70. Issues not addressed. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 72-77. Issues not addressed 78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 79-100. Issues not addressed. HRS Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 16 and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10-11. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. 16-17. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 32, 46 and 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 22. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 2. 23-33. Issues not addressed. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 35-36. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. 37. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 32. 38. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 39. Rejected in Findings of Fact 40, 41 and 42. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 41. Issue not addressed. 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 44. Issue not addressed. 45-46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. 48. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 44. 49. Issue not addressed. 50. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 46. 51. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. 52. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 46. 53-54. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. 55. Issue not addressed. 56-57. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. 58. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. 59-61. Issues not addressed. 62-64. Adopted in Findings of Fact 50 and 51. 65. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 65. 66-68. Issues not addressed. 69. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 52. 70-71. Issues not addressed. 72. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 53. 73. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 53. 74. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 75-77. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. 78-80. Issues not addressed. 81-82. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. 83-89. Issues not addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Cooper, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William B. Wiley, Esquire McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 James C. Hauser, Esquire Foley & Lardner Post Office Box 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire David C. Ashburn, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire C. Gary Williams, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire John F. Gilroy, III, Esquire Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles H. Hood, Jr., Esquire MONACO, SMITH, HOOD, PERKINS, ORFINGER & STOUT 444 Seabreeze Boulevard, #900 Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In November of 1983, HMA filed its application for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate a 60-bed adolescent treatment center in Orlando, Florida. An omissions response was filed by HMA in January of 1984. Thereafter, HRS issued its initial intent to grant the application and PIO requested an administrative hearing. HMA is a privately held corporation which owns or manages twelve or thirteen acute care hospitals in the States of Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas and Florida, several of which are psychiatric hospitals. The proposed long-term psychiatric treatment facility for adolescents is patterned after a 55-bed program currently operated by HMA in Arlington, Texas. The proposed facility will be a freestanding campus-like setting located on ten to fifteen acres of land in the southern portion of Orlando. The precise site has not yet been selected. The single-story facility will have a total size of approximately 45,000 to 50,000 square feet and will be divided into two separate units which connect into a core area containing various support services, such as offices, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, a media center, and an occupational therapy area. While the location finally selected for the facility will have a bearing on the site costs of the project, the estimated construction costs of approximately 3.1 billion do contain a contingency factor and are reasonable at this stage of the project. Each unit will be served by two interdisciplinary treatment teams headed by a physician or a psychiatrist. Key personnel for the facility, such as department heads and program directors, will most likely be recruited from outside the Orlando area in order to obtain persons with experience in long-term care for adolescents. The treatment program is designed to serve adolescents between the ages of 10 and 19, though the bulk of patients will be middle school and high school individuals between the ages of 13 and 17. While the primary service area will be adolescents in District 7, the remainder of the central Florida region is identified as a secondary service area. A full educational program at the facility is proposed. The concept of the hospital will be to treat the whole person, not just his psychiatric problems, and the treatment program will include and involve family members and other factors which may have a bearing on the adolescent's ability to fit into society. The form of treatment is based upon a "levels" approach -- a form of behavior modification wherein privileges are granted for appropriate behavior and the patient is allowed to move up to the next succeeding level of privileges. It is contemplated that the average length of stay for a patient will be approximately six months -- the average time anticipated for a patient to move from the admission level to the level of discharge. HMA intends to seek accreditation of its proposed facility from the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. The total estimated project cost for the proposed facility is $6,307,310.00. Financing is to be obtained either through a local bond issue or by a private lending institution. Based upon an evaluation of HMA's audit reports for the past three years, an expert in bond financing of health care facilities was of the opinion that HMA would be eligible either for a private placement or a bond issue to finance the proposed project. HMA intends to charge patients $325.00 per day, and projects an occupancy rate of 80 percent at the end of its second year of operation. This projection is based upon a lack of similar long-term psychiatric facilities for adolescents in the area, the anticipated, experience at the Arlington, Texas adolescent facility and the anticipated serving of clients from CYF (Children Youth and Families -- a state program which; serves adolescents with psychiatric and mental problems). Although no established indigent care policy is now in existence, HMA estimates that its indigency caseload will be between 3 and 5 percent. It is anticipated that the proposed facility will become a contract provider for CYF for the care and treatment of their clients and that this will comprise 20 percent of HMA's patient population. HRS's Rule 10-5.11(26), Florida Administrative Code, relating to long- term psychiatric beds, does not specify a numerical methodology for quantifying bed need. However, the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee (GMFNAC) methodology for determining the need for these beds is generally accepted among health care planners. The GMENAC study was initially performed in order to assess the need for psychiatrists in the year 1990. It is a "needs- based" methodology, as opposed to a "demand-based" methodology, and attempts to predict the number of patients who will theoretically need a particular service, as opposed to the number who will actually utilize or demand such a service. Particularly with child and adolescent individuals who may need psychiatric hospitalization, there are many reasons why they will not seek or obtain such care. Barriers which prevent individuals from seeking psychiatric care include social stigma, the cost of care, concerns about the effectiveness of care, the availability of services and facilities and other problems within the family. Thus, some form of "demand adjustment" is necessary to compensate for the GMENAC formula's overstatement of the need for beds. The GMENAC formula calculates gross bed need by utilizing the following factors: a specific geographic area's population base for a given age group, a prevalency rate in certain diagnostic categories, an appropriate length of stay and an appropriate occupancy factor. In reaching their conclusions regarding the number of long-term adolescent psychiatric beds needed in District 7, the experts presented by HMA and PIO each utilized the GMENAC formula and each utilized the same prevalency rate for that component of the formula. Each appropriately used a five-year planning horizon. However, each expert reached a different result due to a different opinion as to the appropriate age group to be considered, the appropriate length of stay, the appropriate occupancy factor and the factoring in of a "demand adjustment." In calculating the long-term adolescent psychiatric bed need for District 7 in the year 1989, HMA's expert used a population base of ages 0 to 17, lengths of stay of 150 and 180 days, an occupancy level of 80 percent and an admissions factor of 96 percent. Utilizing those figures, the calculation demonstrates a 1989 need for 158 beds if the average length of stay is 150 days, and 189 beds if the average length of stay is 180 days. If the population base is limited to the 10 to 19 age bracket, the need for long-term psychiatric beds is reduced to between 70 and 90, depending upon the length of stay. From these calculations, HMA's expert concludes that there is a significant unmet need for long-term adolescent psychiatric beds in District 7. This expert recognizes that the numbers derived from the GMENAC formula simply depict a statistical representation or indication of need. In order to derive a more exact number of beds which will actually be utilized in an area, one would wish to consider historical utilization in the area and/or perform community surveys and examine other site-specific needs assessment data. Believing that no similar services or facilities exist in the area, HMA's need expert concluded that there is a need for a 60-bed facility in District 7. In applying the GMENAC methodology, PIO's need expert felt it appropriate to utilize a base population of ages 10 through 17, an average length of stay of 90 days and an occupancy rate of 90 percent. Her calculations resulted in a bed need of 37 for the year 1990. Utilizing a length of stay of 120, 150 and 180 days and a 90 percent occupancy rate, a need of 50, 62 and 75 beds is derived. If an occupancy rate of 80 percent is utilized, as well as a population of ages 10 - 17, the need for beds is 42, 56, 70 and 84, respectively, for a 90, 120, 150 and 180 day average length of stay. The need expert for PIO would adjust each of these bed need numbers by 50 percent in order to account for the barriers which affect the actual demand for such beds. Since the HMA proposed facility intends to provide service only to those patients between the ages of 10 and 19, use of the 0 - 17 population would inflate the need for long-term adolescent psychiatric beds. Likewise, PIO's non-inclusion of 18 and 19 year olds understates the need. PIO's use of a 90-day average length of stay would tend to understate the actual need in light of HMA's proposed treatment program which is intended to last approximately six months. While some demand adjustment is required to properly reflect the barriers which exist to the seeking of long-term adolescent psychiatric care, the rationale of reducing by one-half the number derived from the GMENAC methodology was not sufficiently supported or justified. Even if HMA's calculations were reduced by one-half, a figure of between 79 and 94 beds would be derived. The existence of other long-term adolescent psychiatric beds in District 7 was the subject of conflicting evidence. West Lake Hospital in Longwood, Seminole County, holds a Certificate of Need and a license as a special Psychiatric hospital with 80 long-term beds. However, the Certificate of Need was issued prior to the adoption of Rules 10-5.11(25) and (26), Florida Administrative Code, when anything in excess of 28-days was considered long- term. The West Lake application for a Certificate of Need referred to a four- to-six week length of stay -- or a 28 to 42 day period --for adults, and a ten week, or 70 day length of stay for children and adolescents. In preparing inventories for planning purposes, HRS considers the 40 child and adolescent psychiatric beds at West Lake Hospital to be acute or short-term beds. The West Lake facility is not included in HRS's official inventory of licensed and approved long-term care beds as of October 1, 1984. In fact, the only long-term care beds listed for District 7, in addition to HMA's proposed psychiatric facility, are beds devoted to the treatment of substance abuse. PI0 is the holder of a Certificate of Need to construct and operate a 60-bed short-term adolescent psychiatric hospital in Southwest Orange County, and is currently planning the actual development and construction of the facility. If PIO is not able to reach the census projections contained in its Certificate of Need application, its ability to generate earnings could be adversely impacted. Even a five percent decrease in PIO's census projections would require PIO to either raise its rates or make reductions in direct costs. This could include a decrease in staffing, thus affecting a reduction in the available programs, problems in attracting quality staff and ultimately a reduction in the quality of care offered at the PIO facility. In a batch subsequent to the HMA application, PIO requested the addition of 15 long-term adolescent psychiatric beds and 15 substance abuse beds. When an adolescent psychiatric patient is evaluated for placement in a hospital setting, it is generally not possible to determine how long that patient will require hospitalization. The adolescent psychiatric patient is often very guarded, distrusting both parents and other adults, and it is difficult to obtain full and necessary information from both the patient and the parents. Several weeks of both observation and the gathering of data, such as school records, are necessary in order to access the adolescent patient's degree of disturbance. With respect to treatment programs, there is no sharp medical demarcation between a 60-day period and a 90 day period. Patients in short-term facilities often stay longer than 60 days and patients in long term facilities often stay less than 90 days. The length of stay is very often determined by the parents, in spite of the treatment period prescribed by the physician. The treatment programs in both short-term and long-term psychiatric facilities are very similar, and short- and long-term patients are often treated in the same unit. Staffing for the two types of facilities would be basically the same, with the exception, perhaps, of the educational staff.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that HMA grant HMA's application for a Certificate of Need to construct and operate a 60-bed long-term adolescent psychiatric facility in Orlando, Florida. Respectfully submitted and entered this 9th day of July, 1985, 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 9th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Gary Williams and Michael J. Glazer P. O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John M. Carlson Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert S. Cohen O. Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not a CON to construct a 60-bed short-term psychiatric hospital in District XI should be issued to Florida Medical Center (FMC).
Findings Of Fact FMC seeks a CON for a 60-bed free-standing psychiatric facility to be located in the Key Largo area of Monroe County in HRS District XI. FMC intends to provide 6.25 percent of its patient days at no charge to indigent patients. It further intends to provide another 6.25 percent of its patient days to HRS' clients and Baker Act patients at 50 percent of its projected charge, or $200 per day. (FMC Exhibit 2, Table 7). FMC proposes to build this facility at a cost of $6,060,000. Dr. Richard Matthews, Ph.D., has been executive director of the Guidance Clinic of the Upper Keys since 1973 and is a clinical psychologist. He is responsible for the overall administration and supervision of mental health, alcohol, drug abuse and out-patient services provided under contract with HRS. Dr. Matthews was qualified as an expert in clinical psychology and the mental health delivery health system in Monroe County. (FMC Exhibit 13). There are three guidance clinics in Monroe County, one each for the upper, lower and middle Keys. HRS contracts through each of these clinics to provide mental health care for its clients. There are no community mental health centers in Monroe County and the clinics are the sole means of delivering mental health care on behalf of HRS' clients within the county. Currently, the guidance clinic of the upper Keys places its in- patients in Harbor View Hospital in Dade County at a cost of $236 per day. Neither Harbor View nor any other hospital provides free days to any of the guidance clinics for in-patient psychiatric care. (FMC Exhibit 13, P. 9) Jackson Memorial Hospital does not accept indigent or charity psychiatric patients from Monroe County. There have been occasions where patients without resources have been unable to be hospitalized although hospitalization was indicated. The middle Keys has a crisis hospitalization unit with a limited number of beds. Patients needing hospitalization longer than three days must be transferred to Harbor View or some other facility in the District. The 15 beds at Depoo Hospital in Key West are not readily accessible to residents of the upper Keys. Residents needing psychiatric services usually go to hospitals in Dade County. Coral Reef Hospital, the nearest psychiatric facility to Petitioner's proposed facility, has in the past refused to negotiate a discounted rate with the guidance clinic. Dr. Matthews, on one occasion, sent a patient to Coral Reef who was refused treatment. Currently, no psychiatrist practices in Key Largo because there are no psychiatric beds to which a psychiatrist could admit patients. The discounted rate of $200 per day quoted by FMC is some $36 per day less than the guidance clinic currently pays to providers for referrals of its patients for psychiatric care. Additionally, the 6.25 percent of free care that Petitioner proposes is greater than the free care which the guidance clinic currently receives from any facility since no facility presently gives any free care to the clinic. The guidance clinic supports Petitioner's CON application and will contract with Petitioner who provides services for in-patients. Grant Center is a long-term 140-bed psychiatric hospital specializing in the treatment of children and adolescents. It is the nearest facility to Petitioner's proposed facility. Grant Center has agreed to refer adult patients to Petitioner. Grant Center treats 2-3 adults a month who need psychiatric care. (FMC Exhibit 14). There is one hospital providing psychiatric care in Dade County which was surveyed by the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) in March, 1988. Currently, a third party insurance carrier no longer utilizes Grant Center because of price. If a facility has prices which carriers consider too expensive, utilization will go down. (FMC Exhibit 14, P. 7). Grant Center currently contracts with HRS to provide its clients care at a rate of approximately $350 per day, a rate one half of Grant Center's normal rate. Jackson Memorial is the only Dade County hospital which will treat an indigent psychiatric patient. Grant Center intends to assist Petitioner with staffing or programmatic needs. It has 80-100 professional staff, most of whom live in close proximity to Key Largo. Robert L. Newman, C.P.A., is the chief financial officer at FMC. He testified, by deposition, as an expert in hospital accounting and finance. Newman analyzed the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) reports for each hospital in District XI which provides psychiatric care. There is no free standing psychiatric hospital in the District which reports any indigent or uncompensated care. Among area acute care hospitals which have psychiatric units, Miami Jackson rendered 38.89 percent indigent care, Miami Children's rendered 6.5 percent indigent care, and no other facility reported that it rendered more than 1.75 percent indigent care. (FMC see Exhibit 11, disposition exhibit 1). Jackson provides no free care to Monroe County residents and Miami Children's care is limited to treating children while Petitioner is seeking adult beds. Jayne Coraggio testified (by deposition) as an expert in psychiatric staffing and hiring. She is currently Petitioner's director of behavioral sciences. The ideal patient to staff ratio is 4 to 5 patients per day per professional staff member. During the evening shift, the ideal patient ratio per professional staff member is 7 to 8 patients. (FMC Exhibit 12, PP. 6-7). Petitioner's facility is adequately staffed based on the above ratios. FMC is considered overstaffed in the psychiatric unit by some of the other area hospitals since they do not staff as heavily as does Petitioner. Lower staffing ratios can affect quality of care since patients and their families would not receive as much therapy. Family therapy is important because the family needs to know about changes in the patient in order to make corrective adjustments. The family that is required to travel in excess of 45 minutes or more one way is less likely to be involved in family therapy. Islara Souto was the HRS primary reviewer who prepared the state agency action report (SAAR) for Petitioner's CON application. (FMC Exhibit 15). District 11 has subdivided into five subdistricts for psychiatric beds. Florida is deinstitutionalizing patients from its mental hospitals. To the extent that private psychiatric hospitals do not accept nonpaying patients, their existence will not solve the problem of caring for such patients. Souto acknowledged that the local health councils conversion policy discriminates against subdistrict 5 because there are so few acute care beds in the subdistrict. In fact, the conversion policy actually exacerbates the maldistribution of beds in the district. (FMC 15, page 26). The psychiatric facility nearest the proposed site (Coral Reef), had an occupancy of 90.3 percent. Souto utilized a document entitled Florida Primary Health Care Need Indicators, February 1, 1986, and determined that Monroe County has not been designated as a health manpower shortage area, nor a medically underserved area. This information is relied upon by health planners to determine the availability of health manpower in an area. This report refers both to physicians and R.N.'s. The average adult per diem for free-standing hospitals in District 11 range from $430 at Charter to just over $500 at Harbor View. Although districts have established subdistricts for psychiatric beds, no psychiatric bed subdistrict in any district has been promulgated by HRS as a rule. The access standard that is relevant to this proceeding is a 45-minute travel standard contained in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.G. That standard states: G. Access Standard. Short-term inpatient hospital psychiatric services should be available within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of this service area's population. Here, the standard refers to the service area which is determined to be an area different than a service district. Applying the travel time standard on a service area basis makes the most sense since the subdistrict is established by the local health council and not the applicant. Analyzing this access standard on a sub-district level, 90% of the sub-districts population is not within 45 minutes of any facility anywhere in sub-district V since the sub-district is more than two hours long by ordinary travel and the population is split two-thirds in lower Dade County and one-third in Monroe County, the bulk of which is in Key West. (FMC Exhibit 17). Therefore, a facility located on either end of this sub-district is not readily accessible by the applicable travel standards to citizens at the other end of the sub-district. This access standard must however be measured and considered with the needs for psychiatric services of the kind Petitioner is proposing to provide. Petitioner has not presented any access surveys or assessments of the caliber relied upon by the Department in the past. Petitioner's facility which would be located in the Key Largo area will no doubt provide better geographic accessibility to residents of District XI who live in the Key Largo area. HRS has in the past used a sub-district analysis to determine geographic accessibility for psychiatric beds even though it has not promulgated a rule for sub-districts for psychiatric beds. See, for example, Psychiatric Hospital of Florida vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Pasco Psychiatric Center, DOAH Case No. 85-0780. Likewise, the Department has approved the conversion of acute-care beds to psychiatric beds even though it found that there was a surplus of psychiatric beds in the district. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). The Department has in the past used a geographic access analysis to approve psychiatric beds in District XI and has used the sub- district analysis or a time travel analysis in its review of Cedars, Coral Reef, Depoo (for psychiatric beds) and the Glenbiegh case (for long term substance abuse). The bed need calculations for the January, 1992 planning horizon shows a surplus of 180 short-term in-patient psychiatric beds. (HRS Exhibit 2). The occupancy level for short-term psychiatric beds in the district is below 70%. (HRS Exhibit 2, pages 11-12). Additionally, the occupancy standards of the local and state health plan, of which the department is required to review CON applications, have not been met in this instance. (HRS Exhibit 2, Pages 6-7). Petitioner has not submitted any documentation to HRS regarding special circumstances need. Petitioner's proposal at final hearing for a staff referral agreement with another local hospital was not contained in the CON application filed with HRS. (FMC Exhibit 14, pages 11-12). Although Petitioner has alluded to some unspecified access problem for residents in the Florida Keys, Petitioner has not documented a real access problem and certainly not a demonstration of inaccessibility under the rule access standard. (Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.g.)(HRS Exhibit 2, pages 14-15). Although the proposed project would increase availability and access for underserved groups in the district, the percentage of total patient days for "indigents" is not substantial and certainly not to the point to warrant deviation from the usual access criteria. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need to build a 60-bed free- standing psychiatric hospital in District XI be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of January, 1989.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the application of Petitioner, University Medical Park, for a certificate of need to construct a 130-bed acute care hospital in northern Hillsborough County, Florida should be approved. The factual issues are whether a need exists for the proposed facility under the Department's need rule and, if not, are there any special circumstances which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application notwithstanding lack of need. The petitioner, while not agreeing with the methodology, conceded that under the DHRS rule as applied there is no need because there is an excess of acute care beds projected for 1989, the applicable planning horizon. The only real factual issue is whether there are any special circumstances which warrant issuance of a CON. The parties filed post-hearing findings of fact and conclusions of law by March 18, 1985, which were read and considered. Many of those proposals are incorporated in the following findings. As indicated some were irrelevant, however, those not included on pertinent issues were rejected because the more credible evidence precluded the proposed finding. Having heard the testimony and carefully considered the Proposed Findings of Fact, there is no evidence which would demonstrate the reasonableness and appropriateness of the application. It is recommended that the application be denied.
Findings Of Fact General Petitioner is a limited partnership composed almost entirely of physicians, including obstetricians/gynecologists (OB/GYN) and specialists providing ancillary care, who practice in the metropolitan Tampa area. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 103-104). Petitioner's managing general partner is Dr. Robert Withers, a doctor specializing in OB/GYN who has practiced in Hillsborough County for over thirty years. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 24- 26, 28-29.) Dr. Withers was a prime moving force in the founding, planning and development of University Community Hospital and Women's Hospital. (Tr. Vo1. 1, pp. 26-28, 73; Vol. 4, pp. 547-548.) Petitioner seeks to construct in DHRS District VI a specialty "women's" hospital providing obstetrical and gynecological services at the corner of 30th Street and Fletcher Avenue in northern Hillsborough County and having 130 acute care beds. 1/ (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 34, 74-75, Vol. 5, pp. 678-679, Northside Ex.-1, pp. 1-2, Ex.-4A.) The proposed hospital is to have 60 obstetrical, 66 gynecological and 4 intensive care beds. (Tr. Vol. 8, P. 1297, Northside Ex.-1 Table 17, Ex.-B.) DHRS District VI is composed of Hardy, Highlands, Hillsborough, Manatee and Polk counties. Each county is designated a subdistrict by the Local Health Council of District VI. Pasco County, immediately north of Hillsborough, is located in DHRS District V and is divided into two subdistricts, east Pasco and west Pasco. If built, Northside would be located in the immediate vicinity of University Community Hospital (UCH) in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Less than 5 percent of the total surgical procedures at UCH are gynecologically related, and little or no nonsurgical gynecological procedures arc performed there. (Tr. Vol. 4, p. 550.) There is no obstetrical practice at UCH, although it has the capacity to handle obstetric emergencies. The primary existing providers of obstetrical services to the metropolitan Tampa area are Tampa General Hospital (TGH) and Women's Hospital (Women's). (Tr. Vol. 1, p. 79, Northside Ex.-4, Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1074-1075.) TGH is a large public hospital located on Davis Islands near downtown Tampa. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 47-48, Vol. 8, pp. 1356, 1358.) TGH currently has a 35 bed obstetrical unit, but is currently expanding to 70 beds as part of a major renovation and expansion program scheduled for completion in late 1985. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1049, 1095, Vol. 8, pp. 1367-1368, Vol. 10, P. 1674, Northside Ex.- 2, P. 3.) In recent years, the overwhelming majority of Tampa General's admissions in obstetrics at TGH have been indigent patients. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 61, Vol. 8, pp. 1375- 1379; Vol. 9, P. 1451; TGH Ex.-3.) Tampa General's internal records reflect that it had approximately 2,100 patient days of gynecological care compared with over 38,000 patient days in combined obstetrical care during a recent eleven month period. (TGH Ex.-3..) Women's is a 192 bed "specialty" hospital located in the west central portion of the City of Tampa near Tampa Stadium. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 63-64, 66-67; Vol. 10 P. 1564; Northside Ex.-4.) Women's Hospital serves primarily private-pay female patients. (Vol. 1, pp. 79, 88-89; Vol. 6, pp. 892-893.) Humana Brandon Hospital, which has a 16 bed obstetrics unit, and South Florida Baptist Hospital in Plant City, which has 12 obstetric beds, served eastern Hillsborough County. (Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Northside Ex.-2, P. 3; Northside Ex.-4 and Tr. Vol. 1, P. 79; Northside Ex.-4.) There are two hospitals in eastern Pasco County, which is in DHRS District V. Humana Hospital, Pasco and East Pasco Medical Center, each of which has a six bed obstetric unit. Both hospitals are currently located in Dade City, but the East Pasco Medical Center will soon move to Zephyrhills and expand its obstetrics unit to nine beds. (Tr. Vol. 1, pp. 108- 109; Tr. Vol. 7, P. 1075; Vol. 8, pp. 1278-1281; Northside Ex.-4.) There are no hospitals in central Pasco County, DHRS District V. Residents of that area currently travel south to greater Tampa, or, to a lesser extent, go to Dade City for their medical services. (Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 266-267, 271-272; Vol. 7, p. 1038.) Bed Need There are currently 6,564 existing and CON approved acute care beds in DHRS District VI, compared with an overall bed need of 5,718 acute care beds. An excess of 846 beds exist in District VI in 1989, the year which is the planning horizon use by DHRS in determining bed need applicable to this application. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1046-1047, 1163, 1165-66; DHRS Ex.-1.) There is a net need for five acute care beds in DHRS District V according to the Department's methodology. (Tr. Yolk. 7, pp. 1066, 1165; DHRS Ex.-1.) The figures for District VI include Carrollwood Community Hospital which is an osteopathic facility which does not provide obstetrical services. (Tr. Vol. 1, P. 158; Vol. 7, p. 1138; Vol. 8, P. 1291.) However, these osteopathic beds are considered as meeting the total bed need when computing a11 opathic bed need. DHRS has not formally adopted the subdistrict designations of allocations as part of its rules. (Tr. Vol. 7, pp. 1017-1017, 1019; Vol. 8, pp. 1176, 1187.) Consideration of the adoption of subdistricts by the Local Health Council is irrelevant to this application. 2/ Areas of Consideration in Addition to Bed Need Availability Availability is deemed the number of beds available. As set forth above, there is an excess of beds. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192.) Tampa General Hospital and Humana Women's Hospital offer all of the OB related services which UMP proposes to offer in its application. These and a number of other hospitals to include UCH, offer all of the GYN related services proposed by Northside. University Community Hospital is located 300 yards away from the proposed site of Northside. UCH is fully equipped to perform virtually any kind of GYN/OB procedure. Humana and UCH take indigent patients only on an emergency basis, as would the proposed facility. GYN/OB services are accessible to all residents of Hillsborough County regardless of their ability to pay for such services at TGH. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1469; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1596; Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 582; Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, P. 21.) Utilization Utilization is impacted by the number of available beds and the number of days patients stay in the hospital. According to the most recent Local Health Council hospital utilization statistics, the acute care occupancy rate for 14 acute care hospitals in Hillsborough County for the most recent six months was 65 percent. This occupancy rate is based on licensed beds and does not include CON approved beds which are not yet on line. This occupancy rate is substantially below the optimal occupancies determined by DHRS in the Rule. (DHRS Exhibit 4; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1069.) Utilization of obstetric beds is higher than general acute care beds; however, the rules do not differentiate between general and obstetric beds. 3/ Five Hillsborough County hospitals, Humana Women's, St. Joseph's, Tampa General, Humana Brandon, and South Florida Baptist, offer obstetric services. The most recent Local Health Council utilization reports indicate that overall OB occupancy for these facilities was 82 percent for the past 6 months. However, these computations do not include the 35 C0N-approved beds which will soon be available at Tampa General Hospital. (DHRS Exhibit 4). There will be a substantial excess of acute care beds to include OB beds in Hillsborough County for the foreseeable future. (Baehr, Tr.w Vol. X, pp. 1568, 1594, 1597.) The substantial excess of beds projected will result in lower utilization. In addition to excess beds, utilization is lowered by shorter hospital stays by patients. The nationwide average length of stay has been reduced by almost two days for Medicare patients and one day for all other patients due to a variety of contributing circumstances. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1192; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1102; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1583-84; etc.) This dramatic decline in length of hospital stay is the result of many influences, the most prominent among which are: (1) a change in Medicare reimbursement to a system which rewards prompt discharges of patients and penalizes overutilization ("DGRs"), (2) the adaptation by private payers (insurance companies, etc.) of Medicare type reimbursement, (3) the growing availability and acceptance of alternatives to hospitalization such as ambulatory surgical centers, labor/delivery/recovery suites, etc. and (4) the growing popularity of health care insurance/delivery mechanisms such as health maintenance organizations ("HMOs"), preferred provider organizations ("PPOs"), and similar entities which offer direct or indirect financial incentives for avoiding or reducing hospital utilization. The trend toward declining hospital utilization will continue. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1192-98; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1584-86; etc.) There has been a significant and progressive decrease in hospital stays for obstetrics over the last five years. During this time, a typical average length of stay has been reduced from three days to two and, in some instances, one day. In addition, there is a growing trend towards facilities (such as LDRs) which provide obstetrics on virtually an outpatient basis. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1456; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644.) The average length of stay for GYN procedures is also decreasing. In addition, high percentage of GYN procedures are now being performed on an outpatient, as opposed to inpatient, basis. (Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 644, etc.) The reduction in hospital stays and excess of acute care beds will lower utilization of acute care hospitals, including their OB components, enough to offset the projected population growth in Hillsborough County. The hospitals in District VI will not achieve the optimal occupancy rates for acute care beds or OB beds in particular by 1989. The 130 additional beds proposed by UMP would lower utilization further. (Paragraphs 7, 14, and 18 above; DHRS Exhibit 1, Humana Exhibit 1.) Geographic Accessibility Ninety percent of the population of Hillsborough County is within 30 minutes of an acute care hospital offering, at least, OB emergency services. TGH 20, overlay 6, shows that essentially all persons living in Hillsborough County are within 30 minutes normal driving time not only to an existing, acute care hospital, but a hospital offering OB services. Petitioner's service area is alleged to include central Pasco County. Although Pasco County is in District V, to the extent the proposed facility might serve central Pasco County, from a planning standpoint it is preferable to have that population in central Paso served by expansion of facilities closer to them. Hospitals in Tampa will become increasingly less accessible with increases in traffic volume over the years. The proposed location of the UMP hospital is across the street from an existing acute care hospital, University Community Hospital ("UCH"). (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 542.) Geographic accessibility is the same to the proposed UMP hospital and UCH. (Smith, Tr. Vol. III, P. 350; Wentzel, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 486; Peters, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1532.) UCH provides gynecological services but does not provide obstetrical services. However, UCH is capable of delivering babies in emergencies. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 563.) The gynecological services and OB capabilities at UCH are located at essentially the same location as Northside's proposed site. Geographic accessibility of OB/GYN services is not enhanced by UMP's proposed 66 medical-surgical beds. The accessibility of acute care beds, which under the rule are all that is considered, is essentially the same for UCH as for the proposed facility. As to geographic accessibility, the residents of Hillsborough and Pasco Counties now have reasonable access to acute care services, including OB services. The UMP project would not increase accessibility to these services by any significant decrease. C. Economic Accessibility Petitioner offered no competent, credible evidence that it would expand services to underserved portions of the community. Demographer Smith did not study income levels or socioeconomic data for the UMP service area. (Smith, TR. Vol. III, pp. 388, 389.) However, Mr. Margolis testified that 24 percent of Tampa General's OB patients, at least 90 percent of who are indigents, came from the UMP service area. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) The patients proposed to be served at the Northside Hospital are not different than those already served in the community. (Withers, Tr. Vol. II, P. 344.) As a result, Northside Hospital would not increase the number of underserved patients. Availability of Health Care Alternative An increasing number of GYN procedures are being performed by hospitals on an outpatient basis and in freestanding ambulatory-surgical centers. An ambulatory-surgical center is already in operation at a location which is near the proposed UMP site. In fact, Dr. Hyatt, a UMP general partner, currently performs GYN procedures at that surgical center. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 150; Hyatt, Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 644, 646. Ambulatory surgical centers, birthing centers and similar alternative delivery systems offer alternatives to the proposed facility. Existing hospitals are moving to supply such alternatives which, with the excess beds and lower utilization, arc more than adequate to preclude the need for the UMP proposal. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1204, 1205, 1206; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453, 1469; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1154; Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1151, 1154.) Need for Special Equipment & Services DHRS does not consider obstetrics or gynecology to be "special services" for purposes of Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes. In addition, the services proposed by UMP are already available in Hillsborough and Pasco Counties. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1162, 1210.) Need for Research & Educational Facilities USF currently uses Tampa General as a training facility for its OB residents. TCH offered evidence that the new OB facilities being constructed at Tampa General were designed with assistance from USF and were funded by the Florida Legislature, in part, as an educational facility. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1391; Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1453-1455.) The educational objectives of USF for OB residents at Tampa General are undermined by a disproportionately high indigent load. Residents need a cross section of patients. The UMP project will further detract from a well rounded OB residency program at Tampa General by causing Tampa General's OB Patient mix to remain unbalanced. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1458; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) UMP offered no evidence of arrangements to further medical research or educational needs in the community. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1213. UMP's proposed facility will not contribute to research and education in District VI. Availability of Resources Management UMP will not manage its hospital. It has not secured a management contract nor entered into any type of arrangement to insure that its proposed facility will be managed by knowledgeable and competent personnel. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, p. 142.) However, there is no alleged or demonstrated shortage of management personnel available. Availability of Funds For Capital and Operating Expenditures The matter of capital funding was a "de novo issue," i.e., evidence was presented which was in addition to different from its application. In its application, Northside stated that its project will be funded through 100 percent debt. Its principal general partner, Dr. Withers, states that this "figure is not correct." However, neither Dr. Withers nor any other Northside witness ever identified the percentage of the project, if any, which is to be funded through equity contributions except the property upon which it would be located. (UMP Exhibit 1, p. 26; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 134.) The UMP application contained a letter from Landmark Bank of Tampa which indicates an interest on the part of that institution in providing funding to Northside in the event that its application is approved. This one and one half year year old letter falls short of a binding commitment on the part of Landmark Bank to lend UMP the necessary funds to complete and operate its project and is stale. Dr. Withers admitted that Northside had no firm commitment as of the date of the hearing to finance its facility, or any commitment to provide 1196 financing as stated in its application. (UMP Exhibit I/Exhibit Dr. Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 138.) Contribution to Education No evidence was introduced to support the assertion in the application of teaching research interaction between UMP and USF. USF presented evidence that no such interaction would occur. (Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1329.) The duplication of services and competition for patients and staff created by UMP's facility would adversely impact the health professional training programs of USF, the state's primary representative of health professional training programs in District VI. (Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1314-19; 1322-24; 1331-1336.) Financial Feasibility The pro forma statement of income and expenses for the first two years of operation (1987 and 1988) contained in the UMP application projects a small operating loss during the first year and a substantial profit by the end of the second year. These pro formas are predicated on the assumption that the facility will achieve a utilization rate of 61 percent in Year 1 and 78 percent in its second year. To achieve these projected utilization levels, Northside would have to capture a market share of 75-80 percent of all OB patient days and over 75% of all GYN patient days generated by females in its service area. (UMP, Exhibit 1; Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 145, Dacus; Tr. Vol. V, P. 750-755.) These projected market shares and resulting utilization levels are very optimistic. It is unlikely that Northside could achieve these market shares simply by making its services available to the public. More reasonable utilization assumptions for purposes of projecting financial feasibility would be 40-50 percent during the first year and 65 percent in the second year. (Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1700; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, pp. 1578, 1579, 1601.) UMP omitted the cost of the land on which its facility is to be constructed from its total project cost and thus understates the income necessary to sustain its project. Dr. Withers stated the purchase price of this land was approximately $1.5 million and it has a current market value in excess of $5 million. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 139, 140.) Dr. Withers admitted that the purchase price of the land would be included in formulating patient charges. As a matter of DHRS interpretation, the cost of land should be included as part of the capital cost of the project even if donated or leased and, as such, should be added into the pro formas. UMP's financial expert, Barbara Turner, testified that she would normally include land costs in determining financial feasibility of a project, otherwise total project costs would be understated (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, P. 141; Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1215, 1216; Turner, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1714.) In addition, the pro formas failed to include any amount for management expenses associated with the new facility. Dr. Withers admitted UMP does not intend to manage Northside and he anticipates that the management fee would be considerably higher than the $75,000 in administrator salaries included in the application. (Withers, Tr. Vol. I, pp. 143, 144.) Barbara Turner, UMP's financial expert, conceded that the reasonableness of the percent UMP pro formas is predicated on the reasonableness of its projected market share and concomitant utilization assumptions. These projections are rejected as being inconsistent with evidence presented by more credible witnesses. The UMP project, as stated in its application or as presented at hearing, is not financially feasible on the assumption Petitioner projected. VIII. Impact on Existing Facilities Approval of the UMP application would result in a harmful impact on the costs of providing OB/GYN services at existing facilities. The new facility would be utilized by patients who would otherwise utilize existing facilities, hospitals would be serving fewer patients than they are now. This would necessarily increase capital and operating costs on a per patient basis which, in turn, would necessitate increases in patient charges. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, pp. 1217-1219; Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1587.) Existing facilities are operating below optimal occupancy levels. See DHRS Exhibit 4. The Northside project would have an adverse financial impact on Humana, Tampa General Hospital, and other facilities regardless of whether Northside actually makes a profit. See next subheading below. The Northside project would draw away a substantial number of potential private-pay patients from TGH. Residents of the proposed Northside service area constitute approximately 24 percent of the total number of OB patients served by TGH. The Northside project poses a threat to TGH's plans to increase its non- indigent OB patient mix which is the key to its plans to provide a quality, competitive OB service to the residents of Hillsborough County. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VIII, P. 1225; Margolis, Tr. Vol. X, P. 1695.) Impact Upon Costs and Competition Competition via a new entrant in a health care market can be good or bad in terms of both the costs and the quality of care rendered, depending on the existing availability of competition in that market at the time. Competition has a positive effect when the market is not being adequately or efficiently served. In a situation where adequate and efficient service exists, competition can have an adverse impact on costs and on quality because a new facility is simply adding expense to the system without a concomitant benefit. (Baehr, Tr. Vol. X, p. 1650.) Competition among hospitals in Hillsborough County is now "intense and accelerating." (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 558.) Tampa General is at a competitive disadvantage because of its indigent case load and its inability to offer equity interests to physicians in its hospital. (Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 945, 947-948); Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, P. 1405.) Tampa General Hospital is intensifying its marketing effort, a physician office building under construction now at Tampa General is an illustration of Tampa General's effort to compete for private physicians and patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1405-1406.) The whole thrust of Tampa General's construction program is to increase its ability to compete for physicians. (Nelson, Tr. Vol. VII, P. 1224; Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, p. 1442.) The Tampa General construction will create new competition for physicians and patients. (Contis, Tr. Vol. VII, p. 1099.) Patients go to hospitals where their doctors practice, therefore, hospitals generally compete for physicians. (Splitstone, Tr. Vol. IV, P. 563; Blair, Tr. Vol. VI, pp. 898, 928.) Because many of the UMP partners are obstetricians who plan to use Northside exclusively, approval of the Northside project would lessen competition. (Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, P. 11.) It is feasible for Tampa General to attract more private pay OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461.) At its recently opened rehabilitation center, Tampa General has attracted more private pay patients. (Powers, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1393-1396.) USF OB residents at Tampa General are planning to practice at Tampa General. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460-1461.) The state-of-the-art labor, delivery, recovery room to be used at Tampa General will be an attractive alternative to OB patients. (Williams, Tr. Vol. IX, pp. 1460- 1461); Popp, TGH Exhibit 18, p.26) IX. Capital Expenditure Proposals The proposed Northside hospital will not offer any service not now available in Tampa. (Hyatt, TGH Exhibit 19, p. 21).
Recommendation Petitioner having failed to prove the need for additional acute care beds to include OB beds or some special circumstance which would warrant approval of the proposed project, it is recommended that its application for a CON be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1985.
