Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner, Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital (Englewood), is a 100 bed general acute care hospital located in Englewood, Florida. Englewood is owned and operated by Columbia/HCA Health Care (Columbia), a for-profit corporation. Englewood operates an outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in a mobile unit located in the hospital parking lot. Patients and some physicians have been reluctant to use the mobile unit. Venice Hospital, Inc. (Venice) is a not-for-profit, community owned hospital with 342 beds. Venice operates an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory for invasive cardiac diagnostic procedures. Venice has unsuccessfully applied twice for a certificate of need (CON) to provide open heart surgery. The Sarasota County Public Hospital Board (Sarasota Hospital Board) is a publicly elected, nine member organization, which is responsible for the operation and oversight of Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Memorial). Memorial is a 952 bed hospital with services including inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Memorial is located in Sarasota, Florida. Englewood, Venice, and Memorial are all located in Sarasota County which is in the Agency for Health Care Administration Planning District 8. There are nine other inpatient cardiac catheterization programs in District 8. The existing inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are distributed as follows: Sarasota County (3); Charlotte County (3); Lee County (4); Collier County (1). Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency which administers CON laws in Florida. The Agency published on February 4, 1994, a fixed need pool projection for inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, showing a need for three additional programs in District 8 for the batch in which Englewood's application was reviewed. This calculation counted an earlier application of Englewood as approved. THE PROJECT Englewood proposes to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, placing inside the hospital facility the equipment which is currently located in its mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory. Englewood timely filed the letter of intent, CON application, and response to omissions for CON Number 7663. The Agency originally denied the application because a previous application by Englewood for inpatient cardiac catheterization services had been granted. The previous application proposed to keep the equipment in the mobile unit and build a walkway from the mobile unit to the hospital facility. Englewood withdrew its application for the previous application. The Agency has filed an official notice of changing its position to support Englewood's CON Application Number 7663. NEED FOR THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE LOCAL AND STATE HEALTH PLANS The 1993 Florida State Health Plan provides four allocation preferences relevant to the review of the certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes the establishment of both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services provided that a need for open heart surgery is indicated. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to establish a new cardiac catheterization program if the applicant can demonstrate that patients are currently seeking cardiac catheterization services outside the respective county or HRS district. Preference shall be given to hospitals with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share criteria. Preference shall be given to an applicant who agrees to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has projected that charity and indigent care for cardiac catheterizations at less than 1.0 percent of total revenue. Given Englewood's past history, 1.0 percent of total revenue is a gross overstatement. At the final hearing, Englewood stated that it would not agree to condition the CON on Englewood providing charity and indigent care equal to 1.0 percent of the total revenue. The Agency's 1992 Hospital Financial Data showed that Englewood's reported charity and uncompensated care was approximately .09 percent and .06 percent of total revenues for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, respectively. Englewood has agreed to provide adult cardiac catheterization services to anyone in need without ability to pay; thus, Englewood is entitled to a partial preference for providing services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has not demonstrated that it should receive a preference for the other three factors. The 1993 District 8 Allocation Factors Report addresses the following preferences relevant to the review of certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services. Preference shall be given to applicat- ions for new or expanded cardiac catheterization services that clearly indicate the impact of the proposed services on other health providers offering similar services in the same area. Preference shall be given to applicants which agree to provide services to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has agreed to provide services to all patients without ability to pay and is entitled to a partial preference for the second factor in the district plan. AVAILABILITY, QUALITY OF CARE, EFFICIENCY, APPROPRIATENESS, ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENT OF UTILIZATION, AND ADEQUACY OF LIKE EXISTING HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE SERVICE DISTRICT. Englewood's proposed inpatient cardiac catheterization program would not adversely affect the quality of care provided by the cardiac catheterization programs at Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Venice Hospital. Memorial has a comprehensive cardiac catheterization program. It operates three dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratories. The Memorial laboratories provide diagnostic catheterizations as well as all available therapeutic catheterization techniques. Prior to performing a diagnostic catheterization, cardiologists are able to determine with a high degree of confidence and reliability whether a patient with cardiovascular disease will require, during a particular hospitalization, therapeutic intervention, e.g. angioplasty or open heart surgery. Cardiologists rely on an array of sophisticated non-invasive diagnostic tests in making such determinations. When a cardiologist determines that a patient is not sufficiently ill to require therapeutic intervention, the patient will customarily receive a diagnostic catheterization on an outpatient basis. During the last several years, there has been a shift in Sarasota County from inpatient catheterization to outpatient catheterization. In fact, the Medicare program requires that Medicare patients receive outpatient catheterization, unless a patient's medical condition requires inpatient care. Normally only patients with unstable medical conditions receive inpatient cardiac catheterization. That group of patients is likely to require therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission to resolve their medical problems. Between 80 to 90 percent of patients who receive inpatient cardiac catheterization receive therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission. If an unstable patient presents at a facility which lacks the capability to perform therapeutic intervention, it is in the best medical practice to stabilize the patient and then transfer the patient to a facility which can perform both the diagnostic catheterization and the therapeutic intervention. If the unstable patient requires intervention in the form of angioplasty, it is in the patient's best interest to receive both the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during a single visit to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The provision of both procedures in one visit enhances comfort, safety, and efficiency. It is Memorial's practice to provide both types of services in one visit to the catheterization laboratory when possible. Adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are available within a maximum automobile travel time of one hour, under average travel conditions, for at least 90 percent of District 8's population. The Sarasota Hospital Board's policy is to provide cardiac catheterization services at Memorial to all residents without regard to their ability to pay. In its most recently completed fiscal year at the time of the final hearing, the Sarasota Hospital Board provided $268,000 of charity care and $720,000 of Medicaid care, related to cardiac catheterization patients. In its application, Englewood stated: "There is no evidence to indicate that the efficiency, appropriateness and adequacy of adult inpatient cardiac catheterizations services in District VIII are less than adequate." Each of the seven hospitals in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, with the exception of Englewood, operate an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. There is excess capacity at the existing cardiac laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. A single cardiac catheterization laboratory can safely perform approximately 1500 cases annually. Three of the existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties operate a volume between 300-400 cases annually: Fawcett, St. Joseph's, and Doctors'. Fawcett is owned and operated by Columbia. Venice operates the existing laboratory closest to Englewood. Venice's catheterization laboratory has the capacity to perform 1,500 procedures annually. Over the last five years, the number of cases has grown from 500 to approximately 800, where it has leveled off, leaving almost half the laboratory's capacity unused. Venice's catheterization laboratory is available and accessible to Englewood residents. The catheterization laboratory at Venice has been serving Englewood patients and will continue to do so. Venice currently serves a significant share of the market in three of the six zip codes identified by Englewood as its service area. There is adequate capacity at the existing laboratories in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties to treat the existing volume of cardiac catheterization patients, as well as the volume that Englewood proposes to serve. Patients in the Englewood area will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient cardiac catheterization services in the absence of Englewood's proposed program. Under these circumstances it is more appropriate and less expensive to the health care system as a whole to fully utilize existing catheterization laboratories. ABILITY OF APPLICANT TO PROVIDE QUALITY CARE AND APPLICANT'S RECORD OF PROVIDING QUALITY OF CARE Englewood has a record of providing appropriate quality of care to its patients. Englewood is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. Englewood submitted a written protocol for transfer of emergency patients to a hospital providing open heart surgery within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions as part of its application. Englewood's cardiac catheterization program policies and procedures manual is appropriate. The equipment which Englewood proposes for its inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory was purchased from Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center in Fort Myers, Florida, where it had been used successfully for approximately one year. The equipment is currently being used in Englewood's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. The equipment uses analog imaging, and includes video playback to allow instant review. Digital imaging is newer technology than analog imaging and allows the image of the cardiac areas to be magnified, processed and measured while the physician is performing the catheterization. Regardless whether analog or digital imaging is used the physician will rely on a 35mm film which is made during the catheterization procedure to make the diagnosis. The digital imaging equipment is more expensive than the analog imaging equipment. Although, digital imaging is nice to have, it is not necessary to provide quality cardiac catheterization services. Englewood has plans to move the outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory from the mobile unit to inside the hospital facilities. As of the date of the final hearing, Englewood had not begun construction of this project to relocate the outpatient laboratory. The cost of renovating space for the cardiac catheterization laboratory and moving the equipment inside is estimated to be $400,000. Two or three people are required to assist the physician perform an inpatient cardiac catheterization. One person circulates, moving outside the sterile area surrounding the procedure table to get medications, log information and generally oversee and monitor the patient's condition. The staff should include cardiovascular technicians, who may be but do not have to be nurses. Englewood proposes the following staffing and salary: FTE'S YEAR 1 HOURLY RATE SALARIES FTE'S YEAR 2 HOURLY RATE SALARIES RNS 3.0 19.92 118,061 5.0 19.68 204,672 Nurse Manager 1.0 0 1.0 0 Cath Lab Tech 2.0 14.43 60,029 2.0 15.01 62,442 Subtotal 6.0 178,090 8.0 267,114 Lab Director 1.0 0 1.0 0 Subtotal 1.0 0 1.0 0 Unit Secretary 0.5 7.96 8,278 1.0 8.28 17,222 Subtotal 0.5 8,278 1.0 TOTAL 7.5 186,368 10.0 284,336 The radiology technician's job is to assist with quality assurance, help maintain and oversee the equipment, and monitor safety. The radiology technician does not have to be present in the laboratory during procedures. Englewood already employs a radiology technician in its radiology department. This technician has had training for cardiac catheterization laboratory duties. Dr. DeGuia currently performs the duties of a medical director and will continue to do so if the inpatient laboratory is established. The nurse manager who is currently employed as the nursing manager for the intensive care, progressive care and outpatient will be utilized in the inpatient laboratory as well. The staff will be cross trained in each position's functions. Englewood will have the assistance of Fawcett Memorial Hospital and Southwest Heart Institute in staffing and training when needed. Englewood's proposed staffing will provide an adequate number of properly trained personnel. The salaries Englewood proposes to pay its staff are reasonable and competitive. UTILIZATION In its application, Englewood projects that the first year of operation of the inpatient laboratory, there will be a total of 236 cardiac catheterizations performed consisting of 132.9 inpatients and 103.1 outpatients. In the second year of operation, Englewood projects the total cardiac catheterizations to be 345 with 194.3 being inpatient and 150.7 being outpatient. Englewood has included six specific zip code in its service area. Based on Englewood's experience with MDC 05 diagnoses1, Englewood's expert witness Scott Hopes opined that Englewood's market share for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services would be as follows: ZIPCODE MARKET SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 33981 43.8 percent 34223 50 percent 34224 65.2 percent 34287 6.4 percent 34293 2.0 percent In order to project inpatient utilization of the Englewood laboratory, it is appropriate to rely upon the historical pool of patients in the Englewood service area who have received inpatient catheterization during a hospital admission, without receiving angioplasty or open heart surgery during that admission. Englewood proposes to serve primarily "low risk" inpatients who are not expected to require intervention during that hospital admission. For the period July 1991 through June 1992, there were 490 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients residing in Englewood's service area. For the period July 1992 through June 1993, there were 479 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients in the same service area. In its application, Englewood applied an aggregate market share to the total number of inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on the residents of the proposed service area. This method distorts the projected number of inpatient procedures which could be performed by Englewood because of the variability of the market shares in each zip code. Based on the method employed in Englewood's application, Englewood would have performed 145 and 160 inpatient cardiac catheterizations in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 periods, respectively. When one applies the actual market share by zip code to the actual number of procedures performed on patients from each zip code, a more accurate projection based on historical data can be made as shown in the chart below. ZIP CODE MARKET SHARE 1991-1992 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 1992-1993 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 21 11 18 10 33981 43.8 percent 35 15 29 12 34223 50.0 percent 68 34 72 36 34224 65.2 percent 42 27 34 22 34287 6.4 percent 145 9 146 9 34293 2.0 percent 179 4 180 4 100 93 Englewood performed 50 outpatient cardiac catheterizations in 1994. This low utilization is based on the physical location of the outpatient facility in the hospital parking lot and the lack of marketing. Fifty procedures is not a representative number of the outpatient procedures which Englewood could expect if the laboratory was located inside the hospital and the program was marketed effectively. The application states that in 1992 the percentage of inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures of the total cardiac catheterizations performed in hospitals with an inpatient program in District 8 was 56.33 percent.2 Thus based on Englewood's market share by zip code, the total amount of cardiac catheterizations which Englewood could have expected in 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 would have been 177 and 165, respectively. In its application, Englewood uses three different methodologies to project the number of cardiac catheterizations Englewood could expect during its first and second year of operation. Method 1 (pgs. 28 and 32 of the Response to Omissions) subtracts the amount of catheterizations Englewood would have expected in 1991-1992 from the amount it would have expected in 1992-1993 and increases the projection each year by this amount to project the number of catheterizations for the first two years of operation. Using Method 1 would result in a decrease in the number of cardiac catheterizations each year because the number of cardiac catheterizations declined by 12 procedures from 1991-1992 to 1992-1993. Method 2 (pgs. 30 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) employs an annual increase of 8 percent. This increase is the lowest annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 208 procedures for 1996 and 224 procedures for 1997. Method 3 (pgs. 31 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) uses a 12.78 percent annual increase based on the average annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 237 procedures for 1996 and 267 procedures for 1997. Using any of the three methods to project the number of procedures to be performed in the second year, Englewood will not perform a minimum of 300 catheterization procedures by the end of the second year of operation of the inpatient laboratory. The Intermedic Health Center is a large multi-specialty group with a five cardiologist heart group based in Port Charlotte. Intermedic has offices in Englewood. The heart group was to begin regular office schedules in Englewood in February, 1994. The group plans to recruit one or two additional physicians to staff the office. At the time of final hearing the physicians of Intermedic's heart group performed cardiac catheterizations at hospitals other than Petitioner's because some of the cases were inpatient and some of their outpatients were uncomfortable with a portable laboratory. For 1995, Intermedic projected 90 to 100 cases; thereby resulting in some increase in business with Englewood relating to cardiac catheterizations. The population in the Englewood service area consists of a large number of residents who are 65 or older. This segment of the population is more likely to have a high demand for cardiac catheterization than a younger segment of the population. The 65 or older category is a fast growing part of the population in the Englewood service area. IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROGRAM Englewood has the financial ability to fund the construction of the project. The pro forma statement contained in the CON application is flawed. Englewood has double counted a profit layer that it is already enjoying from inpatients that it transfers to an inpatient catheterization provider. Englewood does not account for the contribution margin attaching to Englewood's inpatient portion of their care before transfer. In projecting its revenues from outpatient utilization, Englewood has included in its figures outpatient catheterizations it would perform whether or not its application is approved rather than basing their pro forma on the incremental difference attributable to approval of an inpatient program. The projected revenues contained in the pro forma are suspect. First, the proposed procedure charges shown on the outpatient service revenues page of Englewood's application are high. It is unusual to find outpatient procedure charges that are higher than the inpatient procedure charges. In Table 7 in the application, Englewood asserts that patient days for Medicaid and private pay will net the highest revenues per patient day. Typically those two payor sources are at the bottom of the list of revenue producers than the top. Englewood's pro forma understates revenue deductions by assuming Medicaid and private pay reimbursement that is unrealistic and by failing to take into account anticipated growth in managed care. Englewood's financial expert agreed that managed care will see significant growth over the next five years. Because the pro forma overstates net revenue, it understates revenue deductions. Englewood has understated expenses. The marginal cost per case is understated, relocation expenses are understated, and the nurse manager's time is not allocated to the expense side of the pro forma. The State Agency Action Report also calls into question the adequacy of the expenses in Englewood's pro forma.3 Based on the flawed pro forma, Englewood has not demonstrated that the project is financially feasible. OTHER STATUTORY CRITERIA The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including consideration of the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction are reasonable. The proposed design of Englewood's inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory is reasonable and appropriate. Englewood submitted the list of capital projects required by Section 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1993); the audited financial statements required by Section 408.037(3), Florida Statutes (1993); and the resolution required by Section 408.037(4), Florida Statutes (1993). I. STANDING OF VENICE AND MEMORIAL If Englewood were to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, both Venice and Memorial would have patients diverted from their programs to Englewood's. Based on the projections contained in Englewood's application, Venice would lose 82 catheterization procedures in the second year of operation of Englewood's proposed program, resulting in a net profit lose of $234,000. Although Englewood's application projections are inaccurate, the application does contemplate that Venice would lose procedures as a result of the implementation of Englewood's proposed program. In order for Englewood to reach its projected volume of procedures, approximately 40 to 50 procedures would have to be redirected annually from Memorial to Englewood. There is also a strong potential that Memorial would lose angioplasty and open heart surgery cases as well. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center (SWFRMC), in Fort Myers, is owned by Columbia. It is a tertiary cardiovascular referral center for other Columbia hospitals in Southwest Florida. The development of an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at Englewood would assist in the development of referral patterns from the Englewood area to SWFRMC for angioplasty and open heart surgery. It would be in Columbia's interest to encourage utilization of SWFRMC's cardiovascular services by patients residing in the Southwest Florida area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the application of Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital's for Certificate of Need 7663 to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1995.
Findings Of Fact The initial application for a CON to operate an adult cardiac catheterization laboratory by Metropolitan General Hospital was denied by DHRS in the State Agency Action Report dated June 28, 1983 (Exhibit 2). This denial was based upon a projected use of 2,704 cardiac catheterization procedures in 1985 and four cardiac catheterization facilities in operation in District V, the service area which comprises Pinellas and Pasco Counties. The need methodology rule provides that an additional cardiac catheterization laboratory will not be approved if it reduces the average volume of procedures per lab performed in the district below 600 adult procedures based on the projected need in the service area. With a projected need of 2,704, an additional cardiac catheterization lab would reduce the average below the 600 figure. The four hospitals which have approved cardiac catheterization facilities in this district are: All Children's, Medical Center, Morton F. Plant, and St. Anthony's. All Children's is a pediatric hospital adjacent to Bayfront Medical Center Hospital. All Children's is authorized a pediatric cath lab in which adult patients are treated. Most of these patients come from Bayfront and the cardiac cath procedures are done on an out-patient basis. The number of cardiac cath procedures being performed at All Children's Hospital has increased every year since 1980 and the increase has been due primarily to the increase in the number of adult cardiac cath procedures performed. Adult procedures at this lab outnumber children's cardiac cath procedures by approximately three to one. In 1983, 536 adult cardiac cath procedures were performed at All Children' s Hospital. St. Anthony's Hospital has a cardiac cath lab in which 301, 327, and 300 adult cardiac caths were performed in the years 1981, 1982, and 1983, respectively. In Medical Center Hospital's cardiac cath unit more than 900 cardiac caths were performed in 1984 and the number has increased annually since the lab was installed. In disapproving Metropolitan General's application DHRS counted All Children's cardiac cath lab as an adult cardiac cath lab. When it was pointed out that All Children's cardiac cath lab is approved as a pediatric cardiac cath lab and that is the only cardiac cath lab at All Children's Hospital, DHRS recounted the number of existing cardiac cath labs in the district, did not include the cardiac cath lab at All Children's, found that a need for a total of four units exists in this district, and approved the CON for Metropolitan General. Medical Center protested and this hearing followed. Prior to the granting of this CON to Metropolitan General for a cardiac cath lab, correspondence between DHRS and Morton F. Plant Hospital culminated in DHRS advising Morton F. Plant that it could establish a second cardiac cath lab without going through the CON process if the total cost of the project did not exceed $695,285 (Exhibit 20). Pursuant to this "authorization" Morton F. Plant is proceeding to equip and operate a second cardiac cath lab. In awarding the CON to Metropolitan General, this "second" cardiac cath lab at Morton F. Plant was not counted by DHRS. Counting two labs at Morton F. Plant and not counting All Children's lab' leaves four adult cardiac cath labs in the district. DHRS' witnesses testified that an inspection of the facility at All Children's Hospital revealed only one cardiac cath lab. Because this hospital is a pediatric hospital, because the cardiac cath lab was "grandfathered in" without having to go through the CON process, and because the hospital administrators stated that priority would be given to children over adults in the cardiac cath lab, DHRS concluded not to count All Children's as having an adult cardiac cath lab. Metropolitan General Hospital is an osteopathic hospital. David Dietrick, D.O., is a cardiologist on the staff of Metropolitan General and of Medical Center. He presently performs 125-150 cardiac cath procedures per year and all are now performed at Medical Center Hospital. If a CON to operate a cardiac cath lab is granted to Metropolitan General, Dietrick will move all of the cardiac cath procedures he now does at Medical Center to Metropolitan General. The procedures performed by Dr. Dietrick at Medical Center represent about four percent of the hospital's 350 million gross revenues per year. Medical Center recently completed renovation of its cardiac cath lab and the installation of the latest state of the art equipment. This lab is located in the vicinity of the radiology department in which equipment is provided to do angiographic procedures. These procedures are similar to cardiac cath procedures but are done in the arms, legs, abdomen, etc., rather than in the heart. Because of the similarity of equipment and procedures and the heavy demand for cardiac cath procedures at Medical Center Hospital, the early appointments in the radiology lab are reserved for cardiac cath procedures and on average one such procedure per day is performed in the radiology lab. A total of 926 cardiac cath procedures were performed at Medical Center in 1984. If the current rate for 1985 of 90 per month continues throughout the year, a total of almost 1,100 cardiac cath procedures will be performed at Medical Center Hospital in calendar 1985.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioners and intervenors each own and operate hospitals in Broward or Dade Counties. Each facility has applied to the respondent for a Certificate of Need for approval to construct and operate a cardiac catheterization service at their respective bSopitals. Each application was denied on the ground that the challenged Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, did not reveal a need for further cardiac catheterization laboratories in the respective service districts. A cardiac catbeterization laboratory is a specialized x-ray room designed for taking pictures of the heart or doing procedures referrable to the heart. Cardiac catheterization encompasses both diagnostic and, more recently, therapeutic procedures or maneuvers. As a diagnostic procedure, cardiac catheterization is the most reliable test for determining the presence of coronary disease. Within the last 3 to 5 years, cardiac catheterization labs have been used to perform therapeutic procedures, such as the installation of an enzyme to dissolve a clot, the use of PTCA (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty) to open up blockages and the placement of permanent and temporary pacemakers. With wider acceptance of bypass surgery and new advances in anpioplasty, the use of cardiac catheterization has increased in recent years. At this point in time, the effect of other emerging technologies, such as NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance), upon the use of the cardiac catheterization technique cannot be determined. Prior to the adoption of the current challenged rule, HRS's predecessor rule reguired denial of an application for a Certificate of Need for a proposed new cardiac catheterization laboratory unless all existing labs in the service area were performing more than 500 catheterizations per year. The prior rule also reguired the existence of or approval for an open heart surgery service at the applicant's facility. In August or September of 1982, HRS started a review of this rule which ultimately led to the adoption of the oresent challenged rule. As pertinent to the issues raised in this proceeding, the challenged Rule 10-5.11(15) contains a formula methodology for determining the need for new cardiac catheterization laboratories in a service area. The formula requires the utilization of a base year use rate (the number of procedures per hundred thousand population in the service area) to be multiplied by the projected population in the service area in the year in which the proposed lab would initiate service, said year not to be more than two vears into the future. Such multiplication results in the number of catheterization procedures projected to be delivered at the time of initiation of the proposed new service. The rule further provides that no additional cardiac catheterization laboratories may be established in a service area unless the average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved labs performing adult procedures in the service area is greater than 600. The challenged rule specifically states that HRS will consider applications in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria, and will not normally approve new labs unless additional need is indicated by the above formula and unless the 600 average procedures per lab reguirement is met. Rule 10-5.11(15)(f). The current rule deletes the requirement for open heart surgical potential at the applicant's facility. During the rule-making process which spanned from July or August of 1982 through January, 1983, the HRS Office of Health Planning and Development held informal meetings with representatives of the medical community and health planners, and considered the criteria and standards included in the national guidelines, in other states and in various health systems plans. Medical journals were consulted and numerous written comments were received from interested perSons. Several variations of the rule evolved, and a public hearing was held on December 10, 1982. Based on the manv public comments received, changes in the rule were made. These changes were published, the final rule was filed with the Secretary of State on January 24, 1983 and Rule 10-5.11(15) became effective on February 14, 1983. Throughout the rule-making process, HRS weighed and considered different methodologies for predicting the future need for cardiac catheterization services. The use of an historical base year as opposed to the most current or recent year use rate was considered and was the subject of considerable public comment. It was finally determined that a 1981 base year use rate figure would be adopted, and a one time data collection effort was under taken by HRS for this purpose. This effort was not completed until after the challenged rule was adopted. Although recognizing that the use of a current or most recent year use rate would be preferable to and more accurate than the use of a static use rate, HRS was hampered by the fact that it no longer had the data gathering mechanism or manpower to obtain ongoing current information regarding cardiac catheterization utilization. Therefore, 1991 is the latest and most current year for which a complete data base of utilization is available. There is some support for the proposition that the continued increase in the utilization of cardiac catheterization procedures may tend to level off or even decrease as a result of emerging technologies and a decline in the rate of coronary disease. Balanced against this are the factors of increasing population, increased aging of the population and a wider acceptance of catheterization procedures, both diagnostic and therapeutic, on the part of physicians and patients. It is therefore difficult to predict with any degree of certainty whether utilization in the future will increase or decrease. It was the intent of HRS to design a need determination methodology which would pace the approval of new cardiac catheterization labs while observing what is occurring in that area of medicine. The actual experience in Broward and Dade Counties has been a steady increase in the use rate of catheterization procedures performed from 1977 through 1983. The rate of increase for the United States as a whole, while present in each year between 1977 and 1981, with the exception of 1978, has not been as great as that experienced in Broward County. The application of the rule's need determination formula to Broward County, while permitting one additional lab, appears to under-estimate the need for cardiac catheterization services in that area. By employing the 1981 use rate, the formula projects fewer procedures for Broward County in 1984 than actually occurred in the year 1982. The estimated number of procedures for 1983, based upon the actual procedures performed during the first eight or nine months of 1983, exceeds the 1982 number by almost 1,000. Broward County's rate of increase in the utilization of cardiac catheterization procedures is much greater than the rate of increase either for the United States or for the State of Florida. This may be at least partially explained by the fact that the neighboring Palm Beach area has only one cardiac catheterization lab and there is a need in that area, even under the rule's methodology, for as many as five labs. There was no evidence presented that the existing labs in Broward County are overcrowded or unavailable to area residents. A cardiac catheterization procedure takes, on the average, one to one- and-a-half hours. Therefore, the actual capacity of any particular laboratory is well in excess of 1,000 procedures per year. In 1981, the statewide average for annual number of procedures performed per lab was 581. For quality of care reasons, a minimum of 300 procedures per year per lab is necessary. Studies regarding the cost effectiveness of labs at different levels of usage indicate that the main economies of scale accrue up to the number 400 and additional, less pronounced economies of scale continue to accrue to as high as about 700. Any consideration of costs must also include the costs of trans-porting a patient from a facility without a lab to an existing lab and the costs of increased lengths of hospital stay if delays occur because a lab is not available. As long as the cost of instituting a new lab does not exceed the capital expenditure threshold of Section 381.494(1)(c) Florida Statutes, (presently $600,000.00), an existing facility which presently offers cardiac catheterization capabilities could open a second laboratory without going through the Certificate of Need process and thus be exempt from the challenged rule and its method for determining need. This, of course, would allow an existing facility to have an advantage over new competitors who seek to enter the market to fill a demonstrated need. As a practical matter, such a situation would only occur when an existing facility already has a special procedures room and is willing to forfeit that room for the purpose of performing cardiac catheterization. Such a "loophole" is not a result of the challenged rule. The Certificate of Need thresholds are set by statute and the rule comes into effect only when a Certificate of Need is required. The Economic Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the challenged rule, (as well as for Rule 10-5.11(16) pertaining to open heart surgery programs) does not attempt or purport to analyze the overall financial impact upon providers, prospective providers or consumers of regulating the number of cardiac catheterization labs in a service area. Instead, it attempts to give an estimate of the economic impact which the amended rule will have in comparison to the prior rule on the subject. Given the fact that the prior rule reguired a facility to have existing or approved open heart surgical capabilities and required every existing lab in the service area to perform at least 500 procedures per year before a new lab could be approved, it can be concluded that the new rule actually liberalizes the need demonstration requirements for a Certificate of Need. The EIS concludes that, other than the printing and distribution costs of the rule to the agency, no economic impact is anticipated as a result of this amendment. The EIS states that "Though the full extent of the economic impact is indeterminable, the rule is expected to contain health care costs by assuring optimal utilization of existing cardiac catheterization . . ., and by avoiding large capital outlay expendi- tures for unnecessary, duplicative services." The effect on competition and the open market is estimated as follows: "Consistent with the purpose of the Certificate of Need law, the proposed rules will restrain the development of costly excess cardiac catbeterization and open heart surgery capacity. The proposed rules permit the development of competitive new services among area cardiac catbeterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs when need for additional capacity is indicated by the need formula and the level of utilization of existing capacity." Absent from the EIS is a detailed statement of the data and method used in making the estimates of costs and benefits to persons directly affected and the estimate of impact on competition and the open market. However, the record of the rule-making proceeding clearly reveals that cost and benefit considerations were reviewed by those responsible for promulgating the challenged rule. It is clear from the testimony adduced in this hearing, as well as the documents received into evidence pertaining to the public comments and letters received by HRS in the rule-promulgation process, that factors involving cost efficiency, increased patient costs, optimal and actual utilization, lab capacity and guality of care were considered by HRS. Such considerations led to numerous changes in the language utilized in the rule. While the EIS perhaps could have been more explicit in specifying the possible economic impacts of these considerations, the fact that actual dollar amounts are not assigned to these considerations does not render the EIS inadeguate. The challengers to the rule offered no more specifics than that contained in the EIS as to the economic impact resulting from the rule. The impacts enumerated by the economic expert presented by the challengers in this proceeding result more from the fact of regulation itself than from the operation of the challenged rule.
Findings Of Fact "[HRS] has adopted a Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., which makes provision for the review of CON applications in specific time sequences, known as "batching cycles." The purpose of this rule was to implement the statutory mandate of ss. 381.494(5), Florida Statutes, which required that: The Department by rule shall provide for the applications to be submitted on a timetable or cycle basis, provide for review on a timely basis; and provide for all completed applications pertaining to similar types of services, facilities, or equipment affecting the same service district to be considered in relation to each other no less often than four times a year. Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., states that the letter of intent and application schedules were established "[i]n order that applications pertaining to similar types of services, facilities, or equipment affecting the same service district may be considered in relation to each other for purposes of competitive review. "Under Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., June 15, 1984, was the beginning of a batching cycle for "hospital projects" that included certificate of need requests by hospitals for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs. To enter a batching cycle, an applicant must first have filed a letter of intent ("LOI") with [HRS] and the Local Health Council at least thirty (30) days prior to filing an application. The LOI deadline for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle was thus May 16, 1984. There was, however, one exception to this requirement of filing an LOI thirty (30) days in advance. This exception, known as the "grace provision," was found at Rule 10 5.08(e), F.A.C. In cases where a letter of intent was filed within five working days of the letter of intent deadline, a grace period of 10 days from the deadline date for receipt of letters of intent shall be established to provide an opportunity for a competing applicant to file a letter of intent. "On or about May 14, 1984, St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach submitted a letter of intent to file a CON application for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and an open heart surgery program. St. Marys' [sic] LOI was for entry in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. This date of Nay 14, 1984, was within five (5) working days of the LOI deadline for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Boca Raton Community Hospital [also] filed a letter of intent to apply for a CON for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Boca Raton's LOI was filed in April of 1954, a time period greater than five (5) working days prior to the LOI deadline. "On May 29, 1984, Good Samaritan filed with [HRS] and the Local Health Council a letter of intent to establish cardiac catheterization and an open heart surgery program in order to compete for CON approval with the similar services proposed by St. Marys [sic]. Good Samaritan's May 29, 1984, LOI sought entry into the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "May 29, 1984, was within ten (10) days from the deadline date for receipt of letters of intent for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Good Samaritan does not view itself as directly competing with Boca Raton Community Hospital for patients or services due to the distance between these facilities. Good Samaritan does view itself to be in direct competition with St. Marys [sic]. All three hospitals are, however, in the same HRS Service District and [HRS] reviews CON applications for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery on the basis of whether there is a need for such laboratories or programs in the service district. "On June 15, 1984, Good Samaritan submitted its [CON] application to [HRS], together with the required Four Thousand Dollar ($4,000.00) application fee. [HRS] refused to accept this application for review in its June 15, 1984, batching cycle and returned the application and the filing fee to Good Samaritan. [HRS] advised Good Samaritan that the next batching cycle it could enter for this application would be the October 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Good Samaritan timely filed a request for formal proceedings pursuant to ss. 120.57, Florida Statutes (1983), regarding [HRS's] refusal to accept its application in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of this proceeding. "Effective September 6, 1984, and subsequent to the Department's refusal to accept Good Samaritan's application for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle, [HRS] amended Rule 10-5.08(e). The new rule, as amended, reflects the requirements that the Department contends are applicable to Good Samaritan in this case prior to the amendment. "[HRS's] refusal to accept Good Samaritan's application in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle prevents Good Samaritan from having its proposed project reviewed comparatively and competitively with St. Marys' [sic] or Boca Raton's similar proposals, because [HRS] does not review CON applications comparatively and competitively unless they are filed in the same batching cycle. "[HRS] approved in part [sic] both St. Marys' [sic] and Boca Raton's CON applications. CON #3367 was issued to St. Marys [sic] for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and CON #3366 was issued to Boca Raton for a cardiac catheterization laboratory. These actions by [HRS], however, have not yet become final and are subject to formal administrative hearings requested by Good Samaritan. "[HRS] takes the position that the approvals of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at St. Marys [sic] and Boca Raton count against the need for an additional cardiac catheterization laboratory as proposed by Good Samaritan if Good Samaritan's application is considered in a later batching cycle."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That HRS enter a final order requiring that Good Samaritan's CON application be reviewed in the June 15, 1984 batching cycle. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mease Health Care, Inc. (Mease), is a private, not-for- profit acute care community hospital in Dunedin, Florida. It is located in District V, a health planning district established by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). Intervenors, Morton F. Plant Hospital, Inc. (Plant) and Bayfront Medical Center, Inc. (Bayfront), are acute care hospitals also located within District V. Mease has pending in Case Nos. 89-1652 and 89-4888 a challenge to HRS's fixed need pool determination for new cardiac catherization services and an application for a certificate of need (CON) authorizing it to establish a new inpatient cardiac catherization program in Dunedin, Florida. In the instant case, Mease has challenged an HRS policy as being an illicit rule. Respondent is the state agency responsible for the administration of the Health Facility and Services Development Act. For the purpose of assisting it in administering the act, HRS has promulgated Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), Florida administrative Code (1989), which pertains to inpatient cardiac catherization services and defines the requirements for the establishment of such services. Paragraph 8.c. of the rule contains the formula used for calculating fixed need pools for new inpatient cardiac catherization programs. The formula is: NN PCCPV - ACCPV - APP, where NN is the annual net program volume need, PCCPV is the projected adult cardiac catherization program volume, ACCPV is the actual adult cardiac catherization volume, and APP is the projected program volume for approved programs. This formula was applied by HRS to the September 1988 batching cycle, which was the first batching cycle after the rule became effective. For that cycle, HRS calculated NN to be -53 for District V. NN was therefore less than 300. Paragraph 8.d. of the rule provides the following relevant instructions on how the formula should be applied to batching cycles subsequent to September 1988: If NN is less than 300 in the first batching cycle after the rule becomes effective, the ACCPV value which is subtracted from the PCCPV will be the same value as ACCPV in the first batching cycle until the projected net need in a future batching cycle reaches a program volume of 300 or more. . . For the March and September 1989 batching cycles, which were the two batching cycles immediately subsequent to the first batching cycle after the rule became effective, HRS did not keep the ACCPV value constant, "or the same . . . as in the first batching cycle", even though NN was "less than 300 in the first batching cycle." Put another way, in all batching cycles after September 1988 HRS has recalculated ACCPV even though in the first batching cycle NN was a negative number and therefore was less than 300. HRS's affidavit confirms that this is the manner in which ACCPV has been calculated in all cases since the adoption of the rule. Since the policy has been consistently used in the above manner in all cases, creates rights and requires compliance, and is not apparent from a literal reading of the rule, the policy necessarily constitutes a rule. There is no dispute that the policy has not been formally adopted as a rule.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing. The Petitioner regulates the practice of nursing pursuant to section 20.30, and Chapters 455 and 464, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, McDonald Knights, is a registered nurse and holder, at all times pertinent to these proceedings, of license number 1715572. He received his formal training in England and became licensed in the State of Florida by endorsement on or about May 5, 1986. At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent was employed as a registered nurse assigned to work in the surgical cardiac care unit at Cedars of Lebanon Medical Center in Miami, Florida. Francesco Garofalo was a patient in the coronary care unit of the medical center on March 8, 1987, awaiting cardiac aortic bypass surgery the next morning as a result of acute myocardia infarction. He was being intravenously infused with two medications, lidocaine (for arrhythmia) and nitroglycerin (for pain). The medications were applied through continuous intravenous infusion at separate injection sites and through separate volumetric pumps. At approximately 7:45 p.m., the alarm sounded on the volumetric pump responsible for discharging the nitroglycerin intravenous infusion. The Respondent answered the alarm and noted the container of nitroglycerin was empty. Since the previous shift had not provided a back up container of the medication, it was necessary for Respondent to order a replacement be delivered from the unit's pharmaceutical supply. While awaiting delivery of the medication, the Respondent started a dextrose solution running into the patient to prevent the injection site from closing. At this time, the patient complained of pain at the site of his other intravenous injection for lidocaine. The Respondent determined that this injection site had been infiltrated with the lidocaine solution leaking into the subcutaneous tissue of the patient's arm, resulting in discomfort to the patient. The Respondent decided a new site should be secured. In the process of securing a new site for the lidocaine infusion, the Respondent removed a manual plunger apparatus termed a "cassette" from the volumetric pump. This action effectively discontinued the function of the pump. After inserting the needle in the new venous site, Respondent manually operated the plunger apparatus to insure that the line was open and effectively discharging a smooth flow of lidocaine medication into the patient's body. He did not establish a rate of flow for the medication into the patient's body beyond cutting down the manual flow to an amount equal, in his opinion, to 10 to 20 drops per minute. At this point, the Respondent went to take a telephone call and left the patient's care to another nurse who had entered the room. The time was approximately 7:47 p.m. Cordette Steer is a registered nurse with twenty years experience. When she entered the patient's room to allow the Respondent to take the telephone call, she received no instruction from the Respondent. She did not know the medication being injected was lidocaine. Due to the toxic nature of lidocaine and her observation that the volumetric pump for administering this medication had been effectively bypassed, Steer assumed the Respondent had hung a harmless saline or dextrose solution to keep the vein open for the injection. She proceeded to apply tape to secure the needle at the injection site because, as she testified, "nobody would expect lidocaine to be infusing off of the pump, this is something that is never done." At 7:50 p.m., the patient complained of chest pain. Steer was aware of the exhaustion of the patient's nitroglycerin and that a new bag had not yet arrived from the pharmacy. She stepped from the room and returned almost immediately with nitroglycerin tablets which she gave to the patient to relieve his chest pain. He shortly began to exhibit seizure symptoms commonly associated with lidocaine toxicity. Code Blue was sounded. The Respondent was among those personnel responding. He disconnected the lidocaine infusion, stopping the flow of lidocaine to the patient. The time was 7:55 p.m. Resuscitation attempts failed and the patient subsequently expired at approximately 8:30 p.m. Nancy Cox is a critical care educator employed with the Miami Children's Hospital. She is an expert in the fields of surgical and cardiac critical care. She reviewed the medical records pertinent to this proceeding and her expert testimony establishes that: Lidocaine is an extremely toxic medication which can be fatal if the volume administered to a patient is not closely controlled. The dosage the patient should have been receiving was 15 cubic centimeters per hour or approximately three teaspoons per hour. The volumetric pump sets the rate of delivery of an intravenous drug with a finite, or high, decree of accuracy. When the pump is turned off, with the cassette in place, the flow of medication is stopped. When the cassette is removed from the pump device, an open flow is established and the pump fails to act as a regulator. Finite control of drug administration is not possible manually, as was attempted by the Respondent in this case, without taking considerable time to adjust the rate of flow in concert with timed intervals. Even when this is done, the plunger may spring open and allow a greater than desired drug flow. The Respondent should not have established a smooth flow of lidocaine, but rather a dripping or slow rate of infusion. The Respondent deviated from accepted minimal standards of cardiac or critical care nursing when he used the lidocaine solution to initially infuse at an open, unregulated rate in order to determine if the new injection site was functioning as opposed to establishing a patent intravenous route by either injecting saline via a syringe into the catheter, or connecting a bag of a saline or dextrose solution to the catheter for this purpose and then allowing it to infuse, prior to re-connecting the lidocaine. The Respondent also deviated from accepted minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice by not informing Cordette Steer that lidocaine was being administered intravenously to the patient without the use of the volumetric pump.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of the offense charged in the administrative complaint, suspending his license for a minimum period of one year with probationary reinstatement thereafter conditioned upon 1) a showing by the Respondent that he has enrolled and completed continuing education courses, as deemed appropriate by the Board, in the area of cardiac critical care with an emphasis on intravenous medication applications, and 2) he agrees to comply with reasonable terms and conditions of the Board for a subsequent probationary period of two years. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 22nd day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5633 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with requirements of section 120.59 Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Included in finding number 2. Included in finding number 2 Rejected as unnecessary. Including in finding number 2. Included in finding number 3. Included in finding number 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding number 4. Included in finding number 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding number 4. Included in finding number 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding number 6. Included in finding number 6. Included in finding number 5. Included in finding number 6. Included in finding number 6. Included in finding number 6. Included in finding number 6. Included in finding number 6. Patient was pronounced officially dead at 8:52 p.m., but Respondent testified that death occurred earlier. Included in finding number 7. Included in finding number 7. Included in finding number 5. Included in finding number 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding number 7. Included in finding number 7. Included in finding number 5. Included in finding number 7. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. Included in finding number 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding number 7. Included in finding number 6. Rejected as a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Bassett, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William E. Hoey, Esquire 2398 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33133-2399 William O'Neill, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Judie Ritter Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Petitioners should be awarded certificates of need authorizing the establishment of inpatient cardiac catheterization services at their respective facilities. As a result of stipulations of the parties, matters for consideration with regard to award of those certificates of need primarily involve a determination as to whether Petitioners' applications meet rule criteria relating to need (numeric and non-numeric), provision of a written protocol or transfer agreement, and utilization standards.
Findings Of Fact The legislature has deregulated the establishment of outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratories (cardiac cath labs), but a certificate of need (CON) is required before a hospital can operate an inpatient cardiac cath lab. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) has not approved, as the result of initial agency action, a new cardiac cath lab CON in HRS' Service District Five since 1977. The Parties Palms Petitioner NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Palms of Pasadena Hospital (Palms), is a 310 bed acute care hospital located in Pasadena, Florida. Pasadena is geographically located in the southern portion of Pinellas County, Florida. Pasadena, though geographically small, is one of the most densely populated cities in the United States. Within one half mile of Palms are 10,000 people of whom 60 percent are 65 years of age or older. Palms is a full service hospital with an extensive range of medical and surgical services, including a 24 hour emergency room; a coronary care intensive care unit; a surgical intensive care unit; and a respiratory intensive care unit. Palms also offers a full spectrum of non-invasive cardiology services including electrocardiography, echocardiagraphy, nuclear medicine, stress testing and 24 hour monitoring. Palms has five cardiologists, four of them invasive cardiologists, on its active staff and five cardiologists on its courtesy staff. The four invasive cardiologists would utilize a cardiac cath lab or program at Palms. Palms is situated on 13 acres with a main hospital complex that encompasses over 400,000 square feet. There are over 300 physicians on Palms' medical staff, representing virtually every medical specialty. The hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. HRS Service District Number Five, which encompasses Palms location, is composed of Pinellas and Pasco Counties. The service district is heavily populated by persons age 65 and over; the persons who, nationally, have the highest rate of cardiac catheterization admissions per 1,000 persons. The rate for deaths resulting from major cardiovascular diseases and heart disease in Pinellas County is 150 percent above the rate for such deaths within the entire State of Florida. Notably, thirty percent of the approximately 200,000 persons within Palms' primary service area are age 65 or older. Further, sixty-eight percent of Palms' patients are medicare patients with an average age of 77 to 78 years. The average age of the medicare population at other hospitals in Pinellas County ranges from 72 to 73 years of age. During 1987 and 1988, 516 inpatients at Palms required cardiac cath services (238 in 1987 and 278 in 1988). A diagnostic cardiac catheterization (cardiac cath) is an invasive medical operation in which a catheter is passed via vascular access in the arm or leg into the heart for purposes of diagnosing cardiovascular diseases or measuring blood pressure flow. Significant advances in the technology of cardiac catheterization permits usage of cardiac caths in the emergency treatment of heart attacks through injection of thrombolytic agents directly into the blood clot causing the heart attack. While these medications can be given intravenously, such an option is not available in the case of elderly patients, who run a higher risk of internal bleeding as a side effect of the drug, and patients who delay seeking medical attention after the onset of a heart attack. Approximately 30 percent of the patients arriving at Palms' emergency room have a cardiac related problem. The number of these patients who are candidates for intravenous injection of thrombolytic agents is small. Approval of Palms' application would significantly improve the quality of care of these patients by permitting the injection of thrombolytic agents directly into the blood clot causing the heart attack, a permitted medical procedure in the process of administering a diagnostic cardiac cath. After the onset of a heart attack, there exists a six hour window during which potentially life-saving drugs can be administered. Due to the possible side effects of these drugs, cardiologists must often perform a cardiac cath to diagnose the ailment prior to administering the drugs. Consequently, patients who present themselves for treatment at Palms several hours after the onset of heart attack symptoms may be precluded from receiving these drugs in view of the lack of a cardiac cath lab or program at Palms. Mease Petitioner Mease Health Care, Inc., (Mease) owns and operates Mease Hospital Dunedin and Mease Hospital Countryside. Mease also operates clinics located in New Port Richey, Palm Harbor, Countryside and Dunedin, Florida. These clinics serve a combined 350,000 patients per year. Mease Hospital Dunedin is a 278 bed facility located in Dunedin, Florida. The Mease Dunedin Clinic houses approximately 60 physicians. Mease Countryside Hospital, opened in 1985, consists of 100 beds and is located approximately eight miles from Mease Hospital Dunedin. Approximately 30 physicians have offices at the Mease Countryside Clinic. Most physicians practicing in the clinics have hospital privileges only at the Mease facilities. Another 100 physicians on the staff of these two hospitals have practices in the surrounding area and admit patients to the Mease facilities. Physicians housed in the Mease Countryside and Dunedin Clinics provide a significant source of patient referrals for the two hospitals, since most physicians practicing in the two clinics have hospital privileges only at the Mease facilities. Ninety percent of patients hospitalized by physicians in the two clinics are hospitalized in Mease Dunedin or Mease Countryside hospital facilities. Mease currently operates a cardiac cath lab at its Mease Dunedin campus on an outpatient basis. This existing facility could be utilized by Mease for inpatient catheterization. The existing outpatient cath lab is outfitted with a Phillips Digital Cardiac Imaging System, the most medically advanced equipment of this type in Pinellas County. Mease's current outpatient cath lab meets all applicable standards for the operation of an inpatient cath lab and is adequately staffed to perform 600 cardiac caths per year. There is no difference in the physical layout of an inpatient cath lab versus an outpatient cath lab. Mease also provides diagnostic services such as echocardiography and nuclear cardiology. Growth in cardiology services experienced by Mease is consistent with the provision of these additional services. Morton Plant Morton F. Hospital, Inc., (Morton Plant) is a not-for-profit 740 bed general acute care hospital spread among twelve buildings on a 36 acre campus in Clearwater, Florida, approximately three or four miles from Mease. Morton Plant offers a wide range of health care services, including cardiac cath, open heart surgery, a cardiac rehabilitation program, post-cardiac surgery recovery areas and intensive coronary care units. HRS HRS is the state agency which is responsible for administering Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes, the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", under which applications for Certificates of Need (CON) are filed, reviewed, and either granted or denied by that department. Petitioners' Applications The applications of Mease and Palms, seeking a CON to implement inpatient cardiac cath services were filed with HRS on September 28, 1988. After initial review, HRS sent omissions letters to the applicants on October 13, 1988. Responses from Mease and Palms were made on November 11, 1988, and HRS denied both applications on January 12, 1989. Both Petitioners timely requested formal hearings regarding the denials. "Old Rule Versus New Rule" HRS has adopted procedures governing its review of applications, such as those of the petitioners, for CONs authorizing the establishment of inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. These procedures include HRS' numeric methodology for estimating need for cardiac cath labs or programs. This methodology has traditionally been found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e). On April 22, 1988, HRS published a proposed "new" rule containing a new methodology for estimating cardiac cath program need. A key component of the new rule is the use of "admissions" to a cardiac cath program, as opposed to the old rule's use of "procedures", to determine numeric need for additional CONs. The new rule was timely challenged by two parties in proceedings before the Division Of Administrative Hearings. However, the matters in dispute between HRS and the challengers were resolved and the proceedings voluntarily dismissed. Subsequently, HRS filed the new rule as revised with the Secretary of State's office and published the new rule on July 29, 1988. The new revised rule was challenged within 21 days of publication pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, by three new parties in Division Of Administrative Hearings Cases numbered 88-3970R, 88-4018R and 88-4019R. A Final Order eventually issued in those cases finding the rule challenges to have been timely brought pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and finding the revisions to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as a result of noncompliance by HRS with requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Florida Medical Center v. DHRS, 11 FALR 3904 (Final Order issued June 29, 1989). The Final Order in Florida Medical Center has been appealed. The parties to this proceeding were permitted to present evidence of need for the respective applications under both the new and old versions of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e) Florida Administrative Code, although all the parties were informed by order dated September 20, 1989, that the undersigned intended to apply those provisions of the administrative rule criteria in existence prior to the successful challenge to the proposed amendments treated in the Final Order issued in Florida Medical Center. Stipulations Palms and Mease stipulate that each other's application meets the quality of care criteria set forth in Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Morton Plant disputes only Mease's ability to insure quality of care through sufficient utilization. HRS stipulates that both applications meet quality of care criteria with the sole exception that neither applicant included a "written protocol" as noted on page II of the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). The parties stipulate that the requirement for a written protocol exists within the "new" version of the cardiac cath rule and not in the original version of the rule. The parties further stipulate that the terms "written protocol" and "transfer agreement" are not defined in either version of the cardiac cath rule. The parties stipulate that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes, (relating to operation of joint, cooperative or shared health care resources) are not applicable to either of the applications in this case. HRS stipulates that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(f), Florida Statutes, (regarding the need within the service district of an applicant for special equipment and services not reasonably accessible within adjoining areas) are not applicable to either the Palms or Mease applications. Morton Plant contends these criteria are in issue with regard to Mease's application. All parties stipulate that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(g), Florida Statutes, (relating to need for research and educational facilities in conjunction with the applications) are not in issue. Criteria relating to manpower and resources contained in Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes, are not deemed applicable to the applications by HRS or the Petitioners. Morton Plant contends that these criteria are in issue with regard to the availability of necessary health manpower resources insofar as the Mease application is concerned. Petitioners agree that their applications meet immediate and long term financial feasibility requirements of Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. HRS also joins in that agreement, provided costs associated with the cardiac cath lab director at the lab proposed by Palms does not affect the financial feasibility of Palms' project. Morton Plant contests the long term feasibility of Mease's project. All parties agree that criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes, relating to the costs and methods of proposed construction and equipment acquisition, are met by Palms' application and are not applicable to Mease's application. Criteria contained in Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes, relating to provision of services to Medicare and medically indigent patients, are met by the Petitioners according to HRS. The other parties contend these criteria are in issue. The parties agree that requirements of Section 381.705(2)(c) and (e), Florida Statutes, (relating to new construction alternatives and proposals for additional nursing bed capacity) are not applicable to the applications at issue in this case. The parties agree that the licensure and accreditation of the parties are not in issue and need not be proven. HRS stipulates that Palms' application and Mease's application satisfy all rule criteria under both the old and new versions of the cardiac cath rule with exception of those criteria relating to need (numeric and non-numeric), a written protocol or transfer agreement, and utilization standards set forth in the rule. Availability of existing services Palms Palms' patients requiring the services of a cardiac cath lab must be transferred by ambulance to other facilities where such service is available. Most of these transfers are made to All Children's Hospital (All Children's) in St. Petersburg, Florida, the nearest facility with cardiac cath services. Cath procedures are performed at that facility by cardiologists possessing staff privileges at Palms, as well as All Children's. On average, the transfer of a patient from Palms to All Children's takes an average of one and a half to two hours, although the actual automobile travel time is less than an hour. After a determination that a cardiac cath is needed, arrangements for the transfer involve negotiating an available time at All Children's and preparing the patient for transfer. Patient medical records are copied, consent forms signed, explanations given to patients and intravenous administration of fluids is begun. Because of their unstable condition, specialized nurses, capable of interpreting cardiac monitors and administering drugs associated with cardiac problems, must accompany these cardiac patients in the ambulance. All Children's ambulance is often not available for transfers from Palms. In those instances, Palms must provide an ambulance and nurse. If the need for such a transfer occurs in the middle of a nursing shift, Palms must pull a nurse from another unit in the hospital to accompany the patient. If plans for the transfer are known in advance of the beginning of a nursing shift, additional nursing staff is arranged for that shift. Some patients experience difficulties in the course of such a transfer. The number of intravenous applications (IVs) attached to a patient is limited during an ambulance transfer, consequently some patients must have some IVs removed. During transportation of the patient, IVs are often shaken loose, medications become unbalanced, other medical appliances become disconnected and some patients experience blood loss as well as a loss of blood pressure. Some patients have required blood transfusions upon arrival at the cardiac cath facilities. In view of the associated difficulties, some cardiovascular patients at Palms are simply too sick to undergo a transfer to another facility where cardiac cath services are available. If a cardiac cath lab or program existed at Palms, an estimated $68,000 in transportation charges would be saved in the first year alone. All Children's, a pediatric hospital, is the only hospital in the State of Florida that performs cardiac cath procedures on both adults and children in the same lab. Since All Children's is a tertiary, regional referral center, more than two thirds of the pediatric diagnostic cardiac caths are performed on nonresidents of the service district. Over 55 percent of all diagnostic cardiac caths at All Children's are performed on nonresidents of the district. Angioplasty is a therapeutic, as opposed to diagnostic, cardiac cath procedure. Such cardiac caths can only be performed at facilities providing open heart surgery services. All Children's is the only hospital in South Pinellas County able to perform angioplasty. All Children's has two cardiac cath labs. Both are heavily utilized. From July 1987 through June 1988, there were 1,268 cardiac admissions to the two labs. All Children's historic rate of 2.12 cardiac cath procedures per admission equates to 2,688 procedures performed on these patients. While this number of "procedures" is in excess of the minimum 600 "procedures" per lab standard applicable under the numeric need methodology used by HRS prior to publication of the proposed admission-based need determination formula, different definitions of the term "procedure" are ascribed to the term in accordance with the context of its usage. Under HRS' proposed admission-based need determination formula, there were 1,099 adult cardiac cath admissions to All Children's program from April 1987 through March 1988. This number of admissions is substantially in excess of the 300 admissions per program standard required for program operation under the proposed new rule policy. Currently 15 cardiologists normally use All Children's two labs on a regular basis. Three of these cardiologists deal with pediatric patients. A fourth pediatric cardiologist is being recruited by All Children's. This additional cardiologist will perform electrophysiology, a cardiac cath procedure involving use of multiple catheters. Electrophysiology studies are extremely time-consuming and this additional cardiologist's lab usage will contribute to present lab access difficulty. Presently, All Children's has a "block time" schedule for the different cardiologists on the active staff at the hospital. Each cardiologist has a scheduled block of time for usage of the cardiac cath labs. As a result, a cardiologist can not have a patient, admitted during the previous night, catheterized on a particular day unless that physician's block of time happens to fall on that day. This process effectively eliminates a majority of time during the week when a cardiologist may schedule catheterization for a patient. Pediatric cardiac caths require more lab time than adult cardiac caths and All Children's gives preference in scheduling caths to pediatric patients. Further, All Children's facilities are blocked all day on Mondays for pediatric patients. It is not unusual, in view of the preference given pediatric patients and emergency cath requirements, for adult cardiac cath patients to be "bumped" from the schedule after their arrival at All Children's. The length of hospitalization of adult cardiac cath patients therefore increases, along with a substantial increase in the patient's medical care costs. The decision of All Children's to block both of the hospital's labs for pediatric caths each Monday has resulted in the postponement of cardiac caths for Palms' patients until Monday night or Tuesday. The result is that weekend patients from Palms have a lengthened hospital stay, assuming the patients are stable and can endure the sometimes two or three days wait for a catheterization study. Palms' cardiologists also experience difficulty placing their patients after catheterization at All Children's. Since All Children's is a pediatric hospital, there are no adult beds with the exception of eight intensive care beds which are usually filled by open heart and other surgical patients. As a result of the lack of available beds at All Children's, alternatives are to transfer Palms' patients to Bayfront Medical Center, a facility adjoining All Children's, following catheterization, or return them by ambulance to Palms. This latter alternative is often followed since Bayfront Medical Center is frequently without available beds. Since a significant percentage of diagnostic cardiac cath patients must later undergo a therapeutic catheterization, Palms' patients, who are returned to Palms after diagnostic catheterization, must be transferred back to All Children's for additional cath work. In one instance, a Palms' inpatient was transferred a total of nine times. The difficulty of access to the cardiac cath labs at All Children's is particularly acute during the first quarter of each year when many elderly people come to the St. Petersburg area to enjoy the warmer climate. Significant health care risks to delaying diagnostic cardiac caths include instances at Palms where patients with unstable angina have suffered large myocardial infarctions before their transfer to another facility's cardiac cath lab. These risks are enhanced for Palms' cardiac inpatients, many of whom have multiple health problems. Palms' inpatients have a higher comorbidity index than all other hospitals in the service district. The approximately 30 primary care physicians on the active staff of Palms are not on the active staff of any other hospital. As a result, they are unable to follow their patients and continue treating their other ailments when those patients are transferred to another facility for cardiac catheterization work. If these primary care physicians could follow their patients, the quality of care would be improved. In addition to difficulty obtaining timely access to All Children's cath labs, the volume of work performed at the lab has resulted in cardiac cath technicians requesting, on at least one occasion, that a catheterization be stopped due to the fatigue of the technicians. Approval of additional inpatient diagnostic cath labs or programs in the area would reduce or eliminate the occasions of such stoppage in the future. Cardiac patients admitted to hospitals in the service district which do not have inpatient cardiac cath services wait, on the average, 1.5 days longer in the hospital before they receive catheterization than do those patients admitted to hospitals in the district providing such services. As a result, patients undergoing cardiac cath procedures and staying in a hospital without inpatient cardiac lab services average a stay which is 1.6 days longer than patients staying in a hospital with inpatient cath services. If Palms were able to provide inpatient cath services, an average additional charge of $1,800 per patient undergoing cardiac cath would be eliminated. This equates to a total savings of $200,000 to $300,000 in medical costs from the reduction of the average length of stay as the result of an inpatient program at Palms. Since hospitalized patients are at increased risk for developing nosocomial illness, diseases or infections contracted during a hospital stay, reducing the length of stay also lessens the patient's opportunity to develop such an illness. Approval of the Palms application, while temporarily lowering the number of diagnostic cardiac caths performed at All Children's, would eventually result in an increase in the number of cardiac caths performed at All Children's. This is particularly applicable to the increase in therapeutic caths that would occur at All Children's as the result of establishment of a diagnostic inpatient cardiac cath lab at Palms. The elderly and seasonal population which would be served by an inpatient cath lab at Palms would result in increased referrals from Palms to All Children's for therapeutic cath services. Two other hospitals in South Pinellas County operate inpatient diagnostic cardiac cath labs, St. Anthony's Hospital (St. Anthony's) and Humana Hospital Northside (Humana). Since neither hospital provides therapeutic cath services, a patient transferred there from Palms for the purpose of a diagnostic cath must later be transferred a second time to All Children's in the event therapeutic services are required. The diagnostic cardiac cath lab at St. Anthony's is owned and operated by the Rogers Heart Foundation, a private non- profit foundation. The emphasis at the Foundation on cardiac research has led to a very low use rate in its cath lab. Additionally, staff privileges are limited to those cardiologists willing to serve on rotation as an emergency room physician. As a result of the reluctance of cardiologists, who have limited their practice to cardiology, to meet the emergency room duty requirement, the staff of St. Anthony's is effectively a closed one. The cardiac cath equipment at St. Anthony's is out- dated and fails to produce quality images. Problems have been encountered by cardiologists with the quality of film developed by St. Anthony's cardiac cath lab. Consequently, the lack of growth and modernization of the St. Anthony's lab does not present a reasonable alternative to Palms' application. The alternative of Humana presents a shortage of intensive care and cardiac cath beds similar to that experience with All Children~s, especially during the winter months. Continued diagnostic catheterization of Palms patients at Humana will result in increased competition for an already insufficient number of beds. Humana is located even further from Palms than All Children's, worsening the current problems associated with transfer of Palms' patients to All Children's. Further, Humana, according to the rate of admissions to its cath lab in the second year of operation, will Substantially exceed the new proposed HRS policy of 300 admissions required to justify a program's operation. During 1988, Palms ranked fourth out of the 24 hospitals in the service district in the number of inpatients requiring diagnostic cardiac caths. If those hospitals operating cardiac cath labs are eliminated from the list, then Palms ranked first in the total number of inpatients requiring cath services at the remaining 17 hospitals. In 1988, Palms' 278 inpatients requiring diagnostic cardiac cath services was more than the 219 at St. Anthony's and the 174 for Humana's first year, even though those facilities had cath labs. Palms' total also exceeded the 201 patients requiring this service at both of the Mease hospital sites. The likelihood of discernable adverse impact on the cardiac cath programs at St. Anthony's and Humana as the result of establishing diagnostic cath services at Palms is small in view of the infrequent admission of Palms' patients to those programs. Serious problems will continue to be experienced by Palms' patients in obtaining inpatient diagnostic cardiac cath services if the Palms application is denied. In view of the demographics of the surrounding area and patient age composition at Palms, establishment of a diagnostic cardiac cath program in that hospital would result in an improvement of the standard of care received by inpatients there. The unique nature of All Children's primary mission as a pediatric hospital, and its inability to provide ready access to its cardiac cath labs by Palms' patients for the purpose of diagnostic cardiac cath services, coupled with other previously- noted access problems constitute exceptional and "not normal" circumstances sufficient to justify approval of a diagnostic cardiac cath lab at Palms without regard to numeric need requirements of either the "old" or "new" versions of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Mease Accessibility to health services has two aspects; geographical accessibility and financial accessibility. The "old" rule policy of HRS has a two hour travel standard within which a cardiac cath lab must be available. The proposed rule has a one hour standard. Morton Plant is approximately three or four miles from the Mease Dunedin campus. Both hospitals provide services to the same population. The Mease Countryside Campus is approximately eight miles from the Mease Dunedin campus. The considerable testimony regarding the problem and inconvenience of transporting patients for cardiac cath presented by Palms is not appropriate to Mease. The cardiac cath labs at Morton Plant are not overcrowded, although alternatives to that possibility are being contemplated in the future through the addition of another cardiac cath lab. Based upon projections presented at the final hearing, an additional cath lab may be necessary by 1991. The present labs are not utilized on the weekends except for emergencies and difficulty in scheduling a diagnostic or therapeutic cath is rarely encountered. However, a scheduling suggestion was made by Morton Plant officials, requesting that cathing cardiologists not schedule elective cardiac caths on Mondays and Fridays. But, Morton Plant has not implemented any rule making the cath labs unavailable for elective procedures at those times. One of the Morton Plant labs has been in operation since 1985 and the equipment in that lab is scheduled to be replaced in the fall of 1990. This refurbishment should eliminate concerns regarding reliability of that lab's machinery, although all maintenance of the equipment in both labs is conducted at night to permit both labs to be functional during the day. Mease opened an outpatient cardiac cath lab in April, 1989. Mease expects to perform 160 to 175 outpatient diagnostic caths in the first year of operation. The lab is not presently profitable. However, transfer of inpatients to other facilities for purpose of inpatient caths does impact negatively on Mease. Mease loses approximately $133,000 per year as the result of inpatient transfers, exclusive of ambulance fees. These losses represent the difference between the medicare reimbursement to Mease and the charges that Mease must pay to the other facility for provisions of the inpatient cath services. From October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1989, between 250 and 260 Mease inpatients were transferred to other facilities to receive inpatient caths. Ambulance cost per patient varies depending upon the destination facility which is generally either Largo Medical Center in Largo, Florida, for a charge of $436 round trip or Morton Plant for a round trip charge of $378. An estimated one hour is needed to make the transfer of a patient from Mease to Morton Plant, although actual travel time to the nearby facility is obviously much less. The services of those Mease nurses who accompany each patient are unavailable to Mease for other services for approximately two hours. The transfer of any inpatient to another hospital constitutes less than optimal care and can compromise patient safety as illustrated by one instance of the transfer of a Mease patient who suffered a major heart attack en route to another facility and became a "cardiac cripple." However, such examples with regard to accessibility to other facilities by Mease patients are not sufficient to constitute exceptional or not normal circumstances for purpose of granting the Mease application. Need For The Proposed Projects Prior to publication of the new proposed rule, HRS recognized that multiple procedures may be performed on a single patient during one admission to a cardiac cath lab. However, in the course of application of the old rule methodology to determine need for additional cardiac cath CONs, HRs did not, as a matter of operational policy, ascribe that same meaning to the term "procedures" in formula computations made to determine numeric need for those labs. Typically, a patient undergoes more than one procedure in the course of a cardiac cath. To determine an actual number of procedures, in the generic sense of the word, performed by existing cardiac cath labs in the service district, Mease and Palms subpoenaed information from all those labs. As a result of that effort, Mease and Palms have shown that 7,507 cardiac cath procedures were performed in the service district during the period July 1987 through June 1988. Of this total, approximately 5,081 were diagnostic cardiac caths. Cardiac cath lab admissions for diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac caths during the July 1987 through June 1988 period totaled 4,057 patients in the service district, averaging 1.85 procedures per cath lab admission. Similarly, diagnostic cardiac caths averaged 1.47 procedures per admission. A Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) is a combination of variable diagnoses codes and procedure codes that are used by Medicare to assign a fixed level of reimbursement to the type of medical services rendered by a provider. The term ICD-9CM Code is an acronym for the Internal Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification. The ICD-9 coding system is a classification for morbidity and mortality statistics which are modified for use in the United States for statistical collection. There are five diagnosis codes which identity conditions treated and three procedure codes identifying the type of treatment provided. The federal government and the State of Florida's Health Care Cost Containment Board (HCCCB) require that Florida hospitals maintain and report ICD-9-CM Code information. The American Hospital Association, with input from the federal Health Care Financing Administration, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the American Medical Records Association, publishes standards and rules to ensure uniformity in the reporting of ICD-9 information. Further, the Peer Review Organization, as part of its contract with the Health Standards Quality Bureau, reviews the accuracy of ICD-9 coding by hospitals. Florida hospitals report ICD-9 information to the HCCCB by filling out a Uniform Hospital Discharge Data Sheet for each patient. The HCCCB requires Florida hospitals to report up to five diagnosis and three procedure codes. Different ICD-9 codes are assigned for different types of cardiac catheterization procedures. Hospitals are expected to Code each individual cardiac catheterization procedure performed on the patient in accordance with specific instructions published by the American Hospital Association. ICD-9 code information reported to the HCCCB by existing providers of cardiac cath services in the service district corroborates the findings derived by Petitioners from information obtained through subpoenas to those providers, and verifies there is generally some multiple of ICD-9 code procedures per patient in a single admission. While ICD-9 code information is the most reliable tool available for health care planning purposes, the counting of procedures by those codes is not an appropriate measuring tool or good indication of need for two reasons. First, certain procedures may be a component of each and every catheterization, such as pressure measurements and angiography. The same amount of time and resources per patient are utilized regardless of whether the event is recorded as one "admission" or two "procedures". Secondly, different hospitals do record or code the various procedures differently, thereby skewing the results of any attempt to average procedures district wide in order to develop a ratio of procedures to admissions. In this regard, it is noted that Mease and Morton Plant do not code angiography as a separate procedure, consequently they have a low ratio of procedures to admissions in comparison to Palms. In developing its proposed new rule policy, HRS considered methodical scenarios for converting prpcedures to admissions, including a conversion factor of 1.2 procedures per admission and a conversion factor of 1.9 procedures per admission. Neither of these conversion options are utilized in the proposed new rule. Further, the evidence presented at the final hearing fails to establish that HRS has in place any methodology for the conversion of cardiac cath lab procedures to admissions to cardiac cath programs. Petitioners contend that HRS relied in the past upon local health councils to gather the correct number of cardiac cath lab procedures performed by existing labs in a service district, and that hospitals with cardiac cath labs erroneously reported lab admissions to the District Five Local Health Council rather than the total number of procedures performed in the labs. Petitioners further contend that as a result of unwitting reliance upon the number of cardiac cath lab patient admissions instead of the number of procedures performed on patients admitted to those labs, HRS historically suppressed projections of cardiac cath lab need in the Service District Five when applying the "old" rule. The weight of the evidence presented at the final hearing supports a finding that actual need may be at some minor variance with that projected by HRS' need formula computation under the old rule. The extent that such need exceeds the projected amount, while not totally capable of discernment on the basis of the evidence presented, is probably in the neighborhood of 1.01 procedures per admission. It is found that HRS did not intentionally suppress need projections in the district and that the minor variance shown does not substantially affect numeric need determinations calculated under the old rule. As previously alluded to above, the term "procedure" in the rule methodology previously utilized by HRS historically meant the aggregate of what is performed on one admission to a cardiac cath lab. The old rule was based on federal guidelines providing that procedures were equal to an admission. At the time the old rule was written, the terms "cases", "cardiac catheterization", and "cardiac catherization procedures" were used interchangeably with the advent of DRGs for medicare reimbursement purposes, hospitals responded to local health councils' data collection requests by reporting "Procedures" used for reimbursement purposes. The resultant confusion spawned the motivation for HRS to propose the new rule methodology which uses the term "admission." HRS reviewed the applications at issue here pursuant to the proposed new rule and its "admissions" based numeric need methodology. That review, conducted on the basis of admissions, was consistent with the policy of HRS to interpret the term "procedure" to mean "admission." Further, in view of the equivalency accorded the those terms by HRS, the number of procedures for purposes of numeric need calculation under the "old" rule formula does not require inflation in order to apply the old rule's numeric need formula. HRS has candidly admitted that various providers reported the number of "admissions" rather than "procedures". The policy of HRS, although subject to a minor margin of error with the advent of DRGs, to count admissions as procedures is one that has been consistently and fairly applied without regard to whether the result led to the granting or denial of a particular application. From a health planning perspective, an admission or patient is the appropriate unit of measurement to determine future need for cardiac cath services. The goal of the CON program is to ensure an appropriate allocation of services while controlling capital expenditures. The Petitioners contend that cardiac catheterization admissions are not a good measure of resource consumption and that the type of catheterization, i.e., adult versus pediatric and therapeutic versus diagnostic, should be considered. To an extent, the position is well taken, but in the absence of an agency policy that measures numeric need in that fashion, the alternative proposed by the Petitioners is unpalatable. The Petitioners' overly broad proposal for consideration of "procedure" as a multiple of "admission" for purposes of need formula computation results in a proliferation of cardiac cath labs in derogation of the CON program goal previously mentioned. The use of 300 admissions as a minimum number required for a new lab under the proposed "new" rule is not a recognition by HRS of any applicable conversion factor of procedures to admissions. Instead, the number of 300 admissions is a standard that must be met after all existing providers have their present patient volume protected, as opposed to a simple minimal admission number required to maintain skill proficiency of medical personnel. Under the old rule, a volume of only 600 patients per lab is protected in contrast to the new rule's proposal to protect uncapped patient volume in existing cardiac programs. To that extent, the old rule does not place the same emphasis on utilization of existing labs or programs as does the new rule. HRS' SAAR on the Petitioners' applications confirmed a total of 4,712 admissions to cardiac cath labs in the service district from April, 1987 until March, 1988. If the number of admissions is equated to mean the number of procedures, in accordance with HRS rule policy applied to the formula previously used to determine numeric need, then the result of that computation under the "old" rule is no numeric need for additional cardiac cath labs in the service district. Likewise, computations under the proposed "new" rule need formula utilizing reported admissions during the base period also results in a finding of no numeric need for additional cath labs in the district. Out-migration While it is conceded by the parties that strict application of the numeric need methodology of the proposed "new" rule results in a finding of no need for additional cardiac cath labs, Petitioners contend that HRS is required to factor into that new need methodology the number of residents in the service district who go outside the district to obtain cardiac cath services. While subsection h of the "new" rule requires that HRS consider such data in the determination of need, there is no requirement that the number of such residents be included within the need determination formula. As established at the final hearing, out-migration serves to establish need for a facility, in the absence of numeric need, where it is shown that residents are leaving the service district due to unavailability of the services within the district. While residents are leaving the service district in this instance to obtain cardiac cath services, the evidence fails to establish that this action is due to service unavailability. Quality Of Care The parties stipulated that both applicants partially meet the statutory requirement requiring proof of the ability to render quality care and the previous record of the applicant to render quality of care. HRS contends both applicants failed to a provide a "written protocol" for the transfer of emergency patients to open heart surgery providers in compliance with requirements of the "new" rule. HRS concedes that both applications meet quality of care requirements, including those relating to a "transfer agreement" if reviewed under the "old" rule. HRS has not formally defined the term "written protocol", but no evidence exists that either applicant would fail to provide quality of care with regard to transfer of patients in the event such became necessary. The purpose of a written protocol is to assure HRS that proper quality of care procedures would be used in transferring open heart patients. HRS professes confidence in the ability of the applicants to perform this service and therefore this requirement is considered fulfilled in the event approval of the applications is determined pursuant to provisions of the "new" rule. Availability Of Resources Morton Plant's concerns regarding Mease's ability to render quality of care are restricted to whether Mease has provided for sufficiently trained staff to handle the projected volume of cases in the event that Mease's application is approved. Availability of appropriately trained professionals is also a Morton Plant concern. The projections of Mease for salaries, number of employees, expenses, training or acquisition of employees, and overtime costs are reasonable and meet requirememts relating to availability of resources. Consistency With State And Local Plans The state health plan in effect when these applications were filed contains a goal that an average of 600 cardiac cath procedures per lab be maintained within the district. HRS found this provision of the state health plan to be inapplicable since these applications were not reviewed in conjunction with requirements of the "old" rule. Regardless of this omission, neither application meets this goal in view of the traditional interpretation accorded the term "procedures" by HRS. With regard to the district plan, all counties within Service District Five have existing or approved cardiac catheterization providers. With the exception of the access difficulties noted with regard to Palms, services are well distributed. Neither applicant is a major referral hospital, although both have traditionally served all patients without regard to the ability of the patient to pay. Adequacy And Availability Of Other Services There are other existing providers of diagnostic inpatient cardiac cath services available in service district five, whose capacity is not fully utilized. Mease, whose Dunedin campus is located only three to four miles from Morton Plant, proposes to provide services to the same patient population. As previously noted, the concerns about the adequacy of equipment in one of the Morton Plant cath labs is in the process of being addressed through the installation of new equipment in the fall of 1990. Although there are existing providers available, the instances of access difficulty recited by witnesses for Palms are likely to be compounded as more patients undergo cardiac catheterization at those alternative facilities in the future. The demographics of Palms' elderly and multiple illness-laden inpatient population increase the complications likely to be experienced by those inpatients during transfer for purposes of diagnostic catheterization. Likewise, outpatient cath lab establishment would not be a realistic alternative for these patients, or a cost effective measure. While many inpatients would invariably have to be transferred later for therapeutic cath services, the rigors of such a journey would be avoided initially for all inpatients and a considerable number of inpatients thereafter. Impact On Existing Costs No testimony presented at final hearing supports a finding of an adverse impact on any existing provider in the event that Palms' application is approved. Of the three other full service hospitals in Palms' primary service area, only one has a cardiac cath program. Palms projects savings from the elimination of ambulance transfers and reductions in the length of stay for Palms' inpatients receiving diagnostic cardiac caths at approximately $157,000 in the first year of operation. Cost per cardiac cath patient for this service would be approximately $2,200 on average, an amount comparable to other providers in the Palms area. One thrust of Mease's argument, in terms of impact of its program upon the costs of inpatient cardiac cath, is directed to the losses which Mease experiences through the transfer of inpatients to Morton Plant. While increased utilization of Mease's present outpatient cardiac cath lab by its inpatients would decrease or eliminate the present loss of income experienced by the hospital, the burden of that cost benefit to Mease falls upon Morton Plant. The number of inpatients projected by Mease would be derived primarily from individuals who would otherwise receive cardiac cath services at Morton Plant. Approximately 30 percent of the total procedures performed at Morton Plant would be lost if the Mease application is approved. Such a loss would not be detrimental to the Morton Plant program, other than to require Morton Plant to postpone future contemplated increases in the number of cardiac cath labs in the present program. Approval of the Mease application would increase competition to some degree among other providers of diagnostic cath services to inpatients in Mease's primary service area. As previously noted, the impact of competition would be primarily upon Morton Plant, whose cardiac cath facilities, while nearing capacity limits, are not over utilized at the present time. Mease estimates that an average cath charge to inpatients would be $1,500 if its CON is approved. The loss of revenue to Morton Plant will average $1,606 for each inpatient cath lost to another facility, or $511,000 if Mease's application is approved. This amount closely approximates the positive revenue impact of $563,785 estimated by Mease in the event of CON approval. Financial Feasibility All parties, except HRS, stipulated that Palms' application was financially feasible. HRS' position was that Palms' application met this criterion, provided costs of Palms' cardiac cath lab director did not affect financial feasibility. Palms presented evidence at the final hearing amplifying the information in its application and establishing that the cost of the lab director will not affect financial feasibility of the project. The directorship will be a voluntary, non-paying position rotated among the cardiologists with privileges to perform catheterizations. Palms' proposal is financially feasible. HRS stipulated that Mease's project is financially feasible. Morton Plant disputes the long term financial feasibility of Mease's project. Mease maintains that its provision of inpatient cath service will have no cost because the equipment has already been purchased and is being used to do outpatient caths. However, Mease also has an expense item on its inpatient pro forma for depreciation of that same equipment and maintains that the cost for providing the cath service will decrease as costs will be spread over more patients with the advent of inpatient cath services. The more reasonable assumption is that the cost of the equipment is a cost associated with the present CON application, particularly since Mease admits to the motivation of implementing outpatient service in an attempt to enhance the probability of obtaining an inpatient lab. Notwithstanding this cost discrepancy, Mease's application is financially feasible. Medicaid And Medically Indigent HRS has stipulated that the Petitioners' past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent is not at issue. However, the parties contend that the matter is in issue between them. As a not-for-profit hospital, part of Mease's mission is to provide needed medical care, independently of the patient's ability to pay. Mease would apply this same philosophy to patients needing services in its inpatient cath lab. Mease provides its fair share of medicaid and charity services relative to the community in which it is located. Palms has made a commitment to serve all patients regardless of ability to pay. Palms does not have any policies which would discourage Medicaid patients. Comparative Review There is insufficient numeric need under either the new or old rule formula to approve either of the Petitioners' applications on that basis. However, Palms presented considerable evidence of exceptional and not normal circumstances justifying approval of its application. In particular, the overcrowding at All Children's, inpatient transfer problems, the severity of the scheduling difficulties at All Children's and other access problems provide an adequate basis for approval of the Palms application. Palms generates more inpatients requiring inpatient diagnostic cath services than does Mease. Notably, 4.76 percent of the total service district diagnostic cath inpatients originate from Palms as opposed to 3.37 percent for Mease. The average age of Palms' inpatients is higher than that of Mease's inpatients. Palms' inpatients have a higher comorbidity index than both Mease and the service district as a whole. Palms has had, historically, more inpatients in the 45-64 age cohort and the over age 65 cohort undergo cardiac cath than has Mease. Mease provides more Medicaid care than Palms, but Palms does not provide obstetrics and pediatric services, two areas of care traditionally high in Medicaid utilization. If the comparison is limited to Medicaid utilization for cardiology services, Palms ranks higher than Mease. Capital costs of Mease's construction of an outpatient lab capable of provision of inpatient services is not included in its application, although depreciation and amortization of the lab and equipment is included. Mease's outpatient lab was constructed in an effort to improve its application for a CON to provide inpatient services, therefore exclusion of that cost results in an unfair comparison of capital expenditure between the two applications. Discounting Mease's claim that its provision of inpatient cath service will have no cost because the equipment has already been purchased and is being used to do outpatient caths, the application of Palms is superior to that of Mease.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the application of Palms for an inpatient cardiac catheterization lab or program Certificate of Need, and denying the application of Mease. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Mease's Proposed Findings. 1.-3. Adopted in substance. 4. Rejected as to cost, not supported by weight of the evidence. 5.-15. Adopted in substance. 16. Rejected, conclusion of law. 17.-20. Rejected, cumulative. 21.-25. Rejected, unnecessary. 26.-31. Adopted in substance, but qualified in some instances. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, misrepresentative of HRS policy interpretation of "procedures" in the context of rule application. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 37.-38. Adopted in substance. 39. Adopted. 40.-41. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 42.-43. Rejected, unnecessary. 44.-45. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 48.-51. Rejected, cumulative. 52.-58. Adopted by reference. Rejected, relevancy. Rejected as recitation of testimony, alternatively ultimate conclusion not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected, relevancy. 63.-65. Adopted. Rejected, speculative. Adopted by reference. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, cumulative. 70.-72. Adopted in substance. Rejected, cumulative. Adopted in substance. 76. Rejected on basis of creditability. 77.-78. Adopted. 79.-81. Adopted in substance. 82.-84. Rejected, cumulative. 85.-86. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 87.-88. Adopted by reference. 89. Rejected, cumulative and speculative. 90.-91. Adopted in substance. 92. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 93.-94. Adopted in substance. 95.-97. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 98.-99. Adopted by reference. 100. Rejected, unnecessary. 101.-103. Adopted in substance. 104.-110. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 111. Adopted in substance. 112.-114. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 115.-116. Rejected on basis of creditability. 117.-122. Adopted by reference. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Rejected on basis of creditability. 126.-128. Rejected, cumulative. 129. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 130.-131. Adopted in substance. 132.-138. Adopted by reference, although cumulative. 139.-141. Rejected, relevancy. 142. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 143. Rejected, relevancy. 144. Adopted with modifications. 145. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Palms' Proposed Findings. 1.-10. Adopted in substance. 11. Rejected, unnecessary. 12.-25. Adopted in substance. 26. Rejected, unnecessary. 27.-41. Adopted in substance. 42. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. 43.-45. Adopted in substance. 46. Rejected, unnecessary. 47.-57. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 58. Rejected, conjecture unsupported by weight of the evidence. 59.-63. Adopted in substance. 64. Rejected, unnecessary. 65.-71. Adopted in substance. 72.-75. Rejected, unnecessary. 76. Adopted as to first sentence. Rejected as to second sentence as unsupported legal conclusion. 77.-79. Adopted in substance. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted for recitation of factual background in recommended order. However, the term "procedure" refers to ICD-9 procedures and not to "procedures" as that term has been defined by agency policy for need formula calculation. Proposed finding's conclusion of additional lab numeric need is rejected as not supported by weight of the evidence. 82.-88. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 89.-92. Rejected, unnecessary. 93.-94. Rejected, unsupported by weight of the evidence. 95.-101. Rejected, unnecessary. 102. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 103.-105. Rejected as legal argument and conclusions unsupported by weight of the evidence to advance the theory that ICD- 9 procedures should govern over the agency's policy definition of procedures under the old rule, and that such other definition should control the determination of number of admissions used to calculate numeric need under the new rule. Rejected, unnecessary. First sentence adopted in substance, remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as argumentative legal conclusion not supported by weight of the evidence to the extent that subsection h data must be included in numeric need formula calculations. Rejected as to ultimate conclusion of this proposed finding as unsupported by weight of the evidence. 109.-114. Adopted in substance. 115.-117. Adopted by reference. 118.-119. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 120.-125. Adopted in substance. 126. Rejected, unnecessary. 127.-130. Adopted in substance. 131. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 132.-137. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Morton Plant's Proposed Findings. 1.-5. Adopted in substance. Adopted in substance with exception of last sentence which is not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Rejected as to ultimate conclusion as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. 9.-11. Adopted in substance. 12.-15. Adopted in substance. 16.-18. Rejected, unnecessary. First sentence reject, unsupported by evidence as to Palms. Adopted by reference as to remainder of this proposed finding. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, except as to last sentence which is adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. 26-28. Adopted in substance. 29. Adopted in substance with exception of next to last sentence of this proposed finding which is rejected as unsupported by weight of the evidence. 30.-34. Adopted in substance. First sentence rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Remainder of this proposed finding is rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 37.-38. Adopted in substance. 39.-40. Rejected, unnecessary. Ultimate conclusion of this proposed finding regarding accessibility of cardiac cath services to Mease inpatients is adopted in substance. This proposed finding is apparently directed only to the Mease application in view of the usage of the singular in the reference to denial of the "application" and as such the remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance. All aspects of this proposed finding are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Therefore, as a multiple proposed finding not susceptible to division, it is rejected for that reason. Adopted in substance. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 47.-48. Rejected as unnecessary with exception of last sentence of proposed finding number 48 which is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. 49.-50. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 51. Adopted in substance. 52.-56. Rejected, legal argument. 57. Adopted in substance. HRS' proposed findings. Adopted in substance, as to patients requiring angioplasty. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. 7.-10. Adopted in substance. 11. Rejected, unnecessary. 12.-13. Adopted by reference. Rejected as unnecessary. First sentence adopted in substance, remainder rejected as speculative, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. Adopted in substance. 19.-21. Adopted in substance. 22.-23. Rejected, unnecessary. 24.-25. Adopted in substance with exception of last sentence of proposed finding number 25 which is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 26.-27. Rejected, unnecessary. 28. Adopted by reference. 29.-30. Adopted in substance. Adopted in substance. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. Adopted by reference. 34.-35. Adopted. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 39.-45. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance except as to last sentence which is rejected as unnecessary. Adopted. 49.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Adopted. 55.-56. Rejected, unnecessary. 57.-58. Adopted in substance. 59. Rejected, unnecessary. 60.-61. Adopted in substance. 62. Rejected, unnecessary. 63.-67. Adopted in substance. 68.-72. Rejected, unnecessary. 73.-77. Adopted in substance. 78.-79. Rejected as unnecessary. 80.-81. Rejected as legal conclusions. 82. Rejected as unnecessary. 83.-87. Rejected, legal conclusions and argument. 88.-89. Adopted in substance. 90.-92. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. 96.-98. Adopted by reference. 99. Rejected, unnecessary. 100.-101. Adopted in substance. Rejected, recitation of testimony. Rejected as to Palms, not supported by weight of the evidence. As to Mease, existing inpatient providers provide an alternative. 104.-105. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 106. Rejected as cumulative. 107.-108. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted by reference. Rejected, legal argument. Adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. 113.-114. Adopted in substance with modification. 115. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esq. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 804 Tallahassee, FL 32301 C. Gary Williams, Esq. Stephen C. Emmanuel, Esq. 227 South Calhoun St. P.O. Box 391 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Ken Hoffman, Esq. W. David Watkins, Esq. P.O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esq. Loula Fuller, Esq. P.O. Drawer 190 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME-0027913, and was employed by the Norton Seminole Medical Group in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent has been licensed in Florida since 1976. At approximately 3:50 p.m. on November 1, 1983, a 31 year old white male, with the initials R. L., arrived at the emergency room of Lake Seminole Hospital, Seminole, Florida, and was examined by the emergency room physician on duty. R. L. complained of substernal mid-chest pain radiating to his back, which had begun the night before. He was agitated and exhibited a great deal of emotional stress. The emergency room physician on duty treated R. L. for suspected cardiac pathology, placed him on a cardiac monitor, inserted a heparin lock into a vein, and ordered lab work which included a chest x-ray, electrocardiogram, electrolytes, cardiac enzymes, CBC (complete blood count), blood sugar, creatinine and BUN (blood urea nitrogen). These were appropriate tests under the circumstances. When the Respondent came on duty in the emergency room at 7:00 p.m., all lab work had been completed, except for the cardiac enzymes. The emergency room physician who had been on duty when R. L. appeared at the emergency room briefed Respondent about R. L.'s medical history, condition while in the emergency room, and the test results which had been received. After the cardiac enzyme values were received, Respondent reviewed R. L.'s medical history and lab test results, which he determined to be normal, and discharged R. L. at approximately 7:35 p.m. on November 1, 1983, with instructions that he see his family physician the next morning. Respondent's discharge diagnosis for R. L. was atypical chest pain secondary to anxiety. At approximately 11:21 p.m. on November 1, 1983, R. L. expired from cardiopulmonary arrest at the emergency room of Metropolitan Hospital, Pinellas Park, Florida. The autopsy report notes extensive coronary artery disease, but makes no mention of acute myocardial infarction. It was not established by clear and convincing evidence that R. L. suffered an acute myocardial infarction. There is conflicting expert testimony from Steven R Newman, M.D., and Stephen J. Dresnick, M.D., concerning whether Respondent should have admitted R. L. to Lake Seminole Hospital instead of discharging him from the emergency room, and also whether his E.K.G. taken at the emergency room was normal. Drs. Newman and Dresnick are experts in the care and treatment of patients in an emergency room, but their testimony was received by deposition instead of through live testimony at hearing. Thus, based upon this conflict in testimony, and the fact that the demeanor of these witnesses cannot be assessed, it is found that it was not established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care and skill which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances when he discharged R. L., and evaluated the tests which were administered to the patient while in the emergency room as within normal limits. A patient who appears at a hospital emergency room with unstable angina, such as R. L., does not necessarily require admission to the hospital. While serial electrocardiograms and serial cardiac enzymes are called for with patients whose symptoms of cardiac discomfort warrant hospitalization, these procedures are not usually and customarily performed in an emergency room. Therefore, since it was not established that Respondent should have admitted R. L. to the hospital as an in-patient, it was also not established that he failed to exercise the required level of skill and care by failing to order such serial tests while R. L. was in the emergency room. Although the emergency room physician on duty when R. L. arrived at the emergency room at approximately 3:50 p.m. on November 1, 1983, was initially responsible for obtaining a patient history and ordering the tests which were performed, when Respondent came on duty at 7:00 p.m. and took over this case, he was also responsible for insuring that his medical records concerning his evaluation and treatment of R. L., as well as his decision to discharge the patient, were full and complete. Respondent failed to document his review and findings based upon the lab tests and chest x-ray which had been completed, as well as the patient's medical history, and the specific reason or basis for his decision to discharge R. L. Respondent relied almost completely on the medical records compiled by the emergency room physician who was initially on duty when R. L. arrived at the emergency room, and made no significant additions to those records while the patient was under his care, or which would justify his course of treatment, including discharge, of this patient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order reprimanding Respondent for his violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and placing him on probation for a period of six months from the entry of the Final Order in this case, conditioned upon his complying with such reasonable terms and conditions as the Board may impose, including review and verification of the completeness of medical records prepared by the Respondent while on probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NO. 89-6874) Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 5-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 8-9. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 10. Rejected in Finding of Fact 4. 11-12 Rejected in Finding of Fact 6. 13. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact Rejected in Findings 5 and 6. 7, but otherwise Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected in Finding of Fact 7. 12-13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2, but otherwise Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected in Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea Bateman, Esquire Kevin F. Dugan, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Wittner Centre West Suite 60 Suite 103 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 5999 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the administrative complaint contrary to Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact (Stipulated) The Respondent is and was at all times material to the allegations a licensed physician in Florida, holding license number ME 0050839 issued by the state. The Respondent was a board certified internist and board certified cardiologist practicing with Diagnostic Cardiology Associates at St. Vincent's Medical Center (St. Vincent's) at the time of the events which gave rise to these allegations. On or about June 25, 1988, W.V., referred to in the complaint as Patient #1, was admitted to St. Augustine General Hospital in St. Augustine, Florida. W.V. was a 68 year old male with a history of heart problems including four bypasses performed in 1977, a pacemaker implantation in 1979, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and prior prostate surgery. W.V. was determined to have had an acute myocardial infarction for which he was treated at St. Augustine General Hospital for five days. As W.V.'s condition improved, he was encouraged to walk at St. Augustine where he complained of chest pain and weakness. A echocardiogram showed segmental wall motion disturbance involving the posterior wall of the heart. A second electrocardiogram was performed which showed ventricular pacemaker rhythm and ST-T wave changes. On this basis, given his history and myocardial infarction, he was referred for a cardiac catheterization to St. Vincent's where his earlier heart surgeries had been performed. The patient was monitored during his hospitalization in St. Augustine, and did not show any signs of arrhythmias. On June 30, 1988, W.V. was transferred to St. Vincent's and received through the Emergency Room, where he was interviewed by the Respondent. After giving the Respondent a brief outline of his problems, W.V. was placed on a general medical floor for the evening, and scheduled for cardiac catheterization the following day. Cardiac catheterization and its risks were explained to W.V., who signed the patient consent forms authorizing the procedure. On the morning of July 1, 1988, after examining the patient and finding no changes, the Respondent performed on W.V. a cardiac catheterization, which verified the recent acute myocardial infarction, the blockage of two of the bypasses, damage to the heart muscle serving the lungs, and high vascular resistance with severe pulmonary hypertension. The patient tolerated the procedure well and showed no signs of arrhythmias during or after the procedure. The test results indicated that he could not benefit from surgery or angioplasty. W.V.'s primary health threat was from congestive heart failure, a condition likened to drowning in one's own fluids. (Tx-129, line 1.) A patient suffering from congestive heart failure will call for assistance from the nursing staff, as one of the expert's phrased it, "he would have been crawling out the door on his hands and knees calling for the nurse." (See Dr. Gilmore, Tx-130, line 8.) Conversely, heart failure alone would not have caused the patient to have chest pains, unless the patient developed elevated pressures to the point where pulmonary hypotension caused chest pain. However, the chest pain in such a case is not caused by clogged arteries or an impending heart attack, but by build up of fluid in the lungs which causes the heart to work harder to pump the blood through the lungs. (Dr. Campbell, Tx- 107, line 16.) The Respondent's post-catheterization order initially directed that W.V. be moved to a monitored bed following the procedure. The purpose of monitoring a patient is to observe, document and ultimately treat cardiac rhythm disturbances. (Dr. Gilmore, Tx-117,line 6.) Approximately 75 percent of post- catheterization patients were placed on telemetric monitoring (monitoring or telemetry hereafter). Monitored beds existed on 3 East (eight monitored beds), 5 East (eight monitored beds), Coronary Care Unit (eight monitored beds), Intensive Care Unit (12 monitored beds), and open heart unit which, although monitored, would not take catheterization patients. Notwithstanding the number of monitored beds, the critical piece of equipment is the monitor because each room on a monitoring unit was set up to receive telemetry. The monitor is a small radio transmitter that relays information from leads attached to the patient to receivers in each room. The monitors are removed by patients upon discharge, thrown into the laundry, and into the trash. They also require repair. As a result, the actual number of monitors varied from the planned number of monitored beds. Upon completion of the catheterization, the catheterization nurse would advise the nurse in charge of placing patients that the cardiac catheterization patient was ready for admission to the hospital, and whether the doctor had ordered a monitored or unmonitored bed. If the doctor had ordered a monitored bed and one was not available, the placement nurse would ask the admitting physician whether the patient being admitted really needed monitoring given the critical number of monitored beds available and the necessity to poll the treating physicians of all the monitored patients to see if any could be taken off monitoring. Inferentially, the Respondent considered the status of his other patients who were being monitored. If the physician deemed the patient's need for monitoring critical, then the placement nurse would poll the physicians of all other monitored patients, and request that they reassess the needs of their patients on monitoring. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 26) The unit which normally received post-catheterization patients, 5 East, had eight monitored beds and eight unmonitored beds which were used as "stepdown" beds for patients taken off monitoring so that the monitors could be changed, but the patient retained in the same bed. Not only were all the monitored beds occupied on 5 East, the post-catheterization unit, but that unit had almost a full census. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 20 - Page 26) The hospital's procedures required cardiac catheterization patients to remain in the catheterization laboratory until a monitored bed was available if the doctor stated that the patient was to go to a monitored bed. The catheterization patient would be held in the catheterization laboratory where there was a shortage of nursing care until a bed was found. Contrary to the experts' testimony which presumed the authority of the Respondent to place the patient in a monitored bed, it was the placement nurse who placed the patient once the doctor ordered a monitored bed post-catheterization. No evidence was received regarding her authority to place patients requiring monitoring in the ICU or CICU. Typically, doctors reassessed their patients' need for monitoring during morning rounds, and those that were stable were removed from monitoring so the monitor became available for a more critical patient. (See Libsky deposition, Page 24, line 20) W.V. catheterization was completed at approximately 11:00 a.m., following morning rounds when a maximum number of monitors should have been available; however, no evidence was received when a monitor would have been available. Testimony revealed that the wait could be as long as two hours for a monitored bed. During that time, under hospital protocols, W.V. would have remained in the catheterization lab. Contrary to facts assumed by the Petitioner's experts, the Respondent's options for placing the patient were: to place the patient in an unmonitored bed on the cardiac floor, or to retain the patient in a monitored bed in the holding area where he would be monitored by the cardiac catheterization nurse until the patient placement nurse found a monitored bed. The Respondent did not retain the patient in the cardiac catheterization area because the nurses could not adequately monitor W.V. and perform their other duties. The Respondent did not place W.V. in the Cardiac Care Unit or the regular Intensive Care Unit to obtain monitoring because it was not his function to place the patient. The only way he could have placed W.V. in CICU or ICU would have been to change W.V.'s status to justify the overall intensive care of the patient. However, this would have been unsupportable if questioned given the patient's condition which was stable upon admission six days after the myocardial infarction, and remained stable after the procedure. See Dr. Edwards Depostion, Page 41, line 19 et seq. Staffing levels on 5 East at the time of W.V.'s hospitalization were one nurse to four or five patients. There were five nurses, a charge nurse, and nursing assistant, and 22 beds on the unit. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 72, line 15.) The Hospital's Standing Order 01-009 provided that "The critical care nurse, in consultation with the charge nurse, may initiate the following (list of nursing interventions) and notify the physician as soon as possible in the event of an acute deterioration [of] patient status and in the absence of a physician." (See Burnsed Deposition, Page 112, line 4) The Hospital Standing Order 01-017 provided "Any changes in the patient's condition will be called to the attention of the attending physician and appropriate consulting physicians. The emergency standing orders may be initiated by the nursing staff, but the physician must be informed of their use." (See Burnsed Deposition, Page 113, line 10) The Respondent placed the patient on 5 East, the cardiac care floor, in an unmonitored bed at approximately 11:50 a.m., as indicated by the notation on the patient's chart "nonmonitored," which indicated a change from the initial orders. (See Cavin Deposition, Page 34, line 7 and Page 35, line 7 et seq.) There was no order that W.V. should not be resuscitated. The Respondent's standing orders called for the patient's vital signs, together with shortness of breath and chest pain, to be monitored every 15 minutes for four hours. This was done until 3:15 p.m., when the monitoring was reduced to every 30 minutes. The Respondent advised the cardiac catheterization nurse, Mary Cavin, who accompanied the patient to the floor, of his findings, to include evidence of a recent myocardial infarction, and the patient's response to the procedure. (See Cavin Deposition, Page 19-20) Ms. Cavin identified her handwriting on the charts describing the Respondent's findings. However, these notes do not mention the recent myocardial infarction. The referenced notes were not sufficiently identified to check in the patient's charts. W.V. was taken to 5 East by Mary Cavin. Ms. Cavin had worked in this area at St. Vincent's for three years. Cardiac catheterization nurses were described by one of the experts as being among the best trained nurses in the profession, who because they work with the medical staff continuously during the procedures, are aware of the physician's findings and the patient's status. They pass this information along to the floor nurses when they transport the patients back to the floor. Ms. Cavin did not remember specifically W.V., but testified in her deposition regarding her normal practice when delivering a patient. She advised the staff on 5 East how the patient did during the catheterization, and what the findings had been. However, as stated above, in Cavin's notes she did not mention the recent myocardial infarction, and it is unclear whether she mentioned this to the staff of 5 East. The record is unclear to whom Ms. Cavin reported W.V.'s condition; however, Ms. Burnsed received a report on W.V. when she came on duty from Carolyn Johnson, the nurse who had cared for W.V. on the preceding shift. Ms. Burnsed was advised by Ms. Johnson that W.V. was stable post-catheterization, that he had previous open heart surgery, and that one of his grafts was blocked, but "had good collateral circulation to that." Further, Johnson advised Burnsed that W.V.'s vital signs were good, and he had no problems. Johnson did not mention the recent myocardial infarction suffered by W.V. Although Ms. Burnsed could not specifically remember her actions, her general course of action was to do a complete assessment upon starting the shift, make sure her patients were all right and having no problems, and orient them about the call light and calling her. Her physical assessment of W.V. revealed an apical heart rate of 72, respiration 18, and blood pressure of 100/70. W.V.'s vital signs were monitored by the staff of 5 East every 15 minutes as ordered by the Respondent until 3:15 p.m., when this was reduced to every 30 minutes. At 5:00 p.m., the Respondent saw W.V., who had no complaints and was stable. Ms. Burnsed found W.V. up going to the bathroom at 5:30 p.m., and got him back into bed explaining that it was important that he stay in bed because of his incision for at least 24 hours. Ms. Burnsed checked W.V.'s incision, and found that it was not bleeding at that time. At 7:00 p.m., Ms. Burnsed administered Lasix to W.V., and W.V. asked for and was provided sleeping medication at 9:00 p.m., at which time, Ms. Burnsed took W.V.'s vital signs which were essentially unchanged and stable. At 9:20 p.m. the patient's charts reflect that he was complaining of mild shortness of breath (SOB), and pains in his chest. Pursuant to the Respondent's orders, Ms. Burnsed administered nitroglycerin, 150 grains times one, after checking his blood pressure to insure it was within limits for the administration of nitroglycerine, and oxygen via nasal cannula, two liters, pursuant to emergency orders. This relieved the patient's symptoms. Ms. Burnsed did not report to the Respondent that W.V. had suffered mild shortness of breath and chest pain because the nitroglycerin and oxygen relieved his symptoms. The decision to notify or not to notify the treating physician was described as a nursing judgment based upon the nurse's assessment of the patient's condition after being medicated and placed upon oxygen. (See Lipsky Deposition, Page 56, line 8 et seq.) Ms. Burnsed did not consider the patient's condition to have deteriorated given his response to the medication, and did not notify the Respondent. Subsequent to administering the nitroglycerin and oxygen, Ms. Burnsed spoke with W.V.'s wife on the telephone. It is intimated in the depositions that Mrs. W.V. called to advise that her husband had called complaining of shortness of breath and chest pains and an inability to get anyone to assist him; however, no evidence was submitted regarding the content of the conversation between Ms. Burnsed and Mrs. W.V. Five to ten minutes after speaking with W.V.'s wife, Ms. Burnsed returned to W.V.'s room, where she found him resting in bed without complaint. W.V. stated that he wanted to go to sleep. Ms. Burnsed did not remember checking his vital signs on this second visit, and it is most probable that she did not because he was trying to go to sleep. Ms. Burnsed checked W.V. at 10:10 p.m., and found he was not breathing, had no pulse, and was unresponsive. The Cardiac Resuscitation Team was called, and responded. Despite their efforts, W.V. was pronounced dead at 10:50 p.m. Although a partial autopsy was performed which confirmed the findings of the catheterization and the diagnosis of a recent myocardial infarction, the cause of death was not precisely determined. It was assumed by the experts that W.V. did not die of congestive heart failure because he would have complained more. Therefore, the experts concluded that his death was relatively sudden, most probably brought on by an arrhythmia or perhaps a stroke. There was a suggestion that the Respondent did not put W.V. on a monitor because he had a pacemaker. While patients with pacemakers are at no less risk of developing arrhythmias than patients without pacemakers, there was no evidence that this was a consideration of Respondent in placing the patient on a cardiac floor following cardiac catheterization. It was general practice to place cardiac catheterization patients who exhibited signs of cardiac pathology on telemetry for 24 hours following the procedure. The initial orders of the Respondent were consistent with this practice. Testimony was received from the Petitioner's experts was that the Respondent's care was substandard because he did not place the patient on monitoring as they would have done by placing the patient in the emergency room, or the intensive care unit, or the cardiac intensive care unit to obtain telemetry monitoring, or retain the patient in the cardiac catheterization area pending the availability of a monitored bed. Their assumptions regarding the doctor's authority were inconsistent with the procedure for placing patients at St. Vincent's which was the function of the placement nurse. The Petitioner's experts also testified that placing a patient on telemetry notified the nursing staff that the patient required special attention. The Respondent's witnesses were more credible in stating that placing a patient on telemetry was not the way to indicate to nursing staff that the patient required special attention. The testimony of Respondent's witnesses that intensive care personnel were not as well trained as personnel on the cardiac floor to deal with cardiac emergencies is not credible. Both groups of personnel, if not equally versed in cardiac care, are sufficiently skilled in steps to be taken in the event of a cardiac emergency that there would be no appreciable difference in the care provided. Placing the patient in the regular intensive care unit or the cardiac intensive care unit would have required changing the patient's medical status be changed, and there was no change in the patient's condition which would have warranted the change. The patient was extremely ill upon admission, and his prognosis was very poor. W.V. was going to die because of his cardiac condition and chronic pulmonary congestion unless he had a stroke. His condition was irreversible in the opinions of the various experts; however, he would have been released the day following the catherization and treated medically for his problems. The Petitioner's experts opined that the Respondent's decision not to place W.V. in a monitored bed was substandard care because they felt that there was an ethical duty to monitor the patient in the absence of orders directing that efforts not be made to resuscitate notwithstanding the dismal chances for success. Their opinion assumed the Respondent could direct the placement of the patient in a monitored bed on a specific unit within a relatively short period of time because of all the monitored beds in the hospital. The Respondent's experts opined that the decision not to monitor W.V. was within the acceptable standards of medical care by physicians under similar circumstances, i.e., retain the patient in the catherization laboratory where nursing care would have been inadequate pending availability of a monitored bed for up to two hours. Their opinion considered the circumstances at St. Vincent's, and is deemed more credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the charges against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 2nd day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The parties filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1-3 Paragraph 1-3. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 5. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 3. Paragraph 6 Paragraph 6. Paragraph 7 While true, this finding is unnecessary to a consideration of the issues. Paragraph 8 Paragraph 7. Paragraph 9 Paragraph 9. Paragraph 10 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 11 Subsumed in Paragraph 37. Paragraph 12 Subsumed in Paragraph 38,39. Paragraph 13 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 14 If arrythmias were undetected, they would have been irrelevant to consideration of the patient's condition. Paragraph 15 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Paragraph 16 Paragraph 46. Paragraph 17 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Paragraph 18 Contrary to more credible evidence; See Parag 48. Paragraph 19 Rejected at Paragraph 43. Paragraph 20 Rejected at Paragraph 40. Paragraph 21 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence; See Paragraph 12. Paragraph 22 Accurately states the expert's credentials, but is not relevant to consideration of the issues. Paragraph 23 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence; See Paragraphs 42 and 47. Paragraph 24 Subsumed in Paragraphs 9,12,47-49. Paragraph 25 Rejected at Paragraph 16. Paragraph 26 See comments to Paragraph 22. Paragraph 27 See comments to Paragraph 23. Paragraph 28 While the may have been a national standard of care, there was not a national set of circumstances which impact the issue of whether the Respondent adhered to the appropriate standard of care. Paragraph 29 Subsumed in Paragraph 47. Paragraph 30 Subsumed in Paragraph 24. Paragraph 31 Subsumed in Paragraph 9. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 4,5. Paragraph 2,3 Paragraph 6. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 6,4. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 9. Paragraph 6 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence; See Paragraphs 12-14. Paragraph 7-10 Subsumed in Paragraphs 17-19. Paragraph 11 Accurate; however, the patient was stable upon admission. Paragraph 12 Subsumed in Paragraph 46. Paragraph 13 Paragraph 46. Paragraph 14 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 15 Subsumed in Paragraph 25-28. Paragraph 16 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 17 Paragraph 31. Paragraph 18 Subsumed in Paragraph 33. Paragraph 19 Paragraph 37. Paragraph 20 Subsumed in Paragraph 46. Paragraph 21 Paragraph 38,48. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esq. Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael J. Obringer, Esq. Osborne, McNatt, Shaw, et al One Enterprise Center 225 Water St., Ste. 400 Jacksonville, FL 32202-5147 Marm Harris, M.D. Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether certain rules proposed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) related to adult interventional cardiovascular services are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation of the parties, all Petitioners and Intervenors in these cases are acute care hospitals licensed in Florida pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes; are substantially affected by the proposed rules at issue in these cases; and have standing to participate in this proceeding. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensure of hospitals pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and responsible for promulgation of the proposed rules at issue in these cases. This dispute specifically involves proposed rules related to the licensure of adult cardiovascular services in Florida hospitals. Such services include percutaneous cardiac intervention (PCI), also referred to as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PCTA). PCI involves the insertion of a device placed into an artery and directed to the site of a coronary artery blockage. The device is used to compress or remove the blockage material and restore arterial blood flow to heart tissue. A mechanism called a "stent" may be left in place at the site of the former blockage to reduce the potential for re-blockage ("restenosis") of the artery. The procedure is performed in a cardiac catheterization laboratory ("cath lab"). PCI that is performed on an emergency basis to open an arterial blockage causing myocardial infarction (heart attack) is referred to as "primary" or "emergent" PCI. PCI performed to resolve symptoms of coronary artery disease manifesting in presentations other than through myocardial infarction is referred to as "elective" PCI. Previous law restricted PCI services to those hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery (commonly referred to as "open heart" surgery). Hospitals are required to obtain a Certificate of Need (CON) from AHCA to operate a cardiac surgery program. Accordingly, in order to offer PCI services, a hospital was required to obtain a cardiac surgery program CON from AHCA. As cardiac catheterization procedures have become more widely available and physician training and experience have increased, the relative safety of the procedures has improved. The volume of open heart cardiac surgery has declined as the patient outcomes for non-surgical coronary artery disease treatments have improved, yet Florida hospitals seeking to provide PCI were still operating under the CON-based restrictions. There is an ongoing debate within the medical community related to the issue of whether non-emergent patients should receive PCI services at hospitals which lack cardiac surgery programs. The historic rationale for restricting the availability of elective PCI procedures to hospitals where onsite cardiac surgery was also available was related to the possibility that an unsuccessful PCI would require immediate resolution through surgery. The evidence establishes that PCI-related events requiring immediate access to onsite cardiac surgery have become less frequent, at least in part due to increased training and experience of practitioners, as well as an increased technical ability to resolve some events, such as arterial ruptures or perforations, within the cath lab. Nonetheless, there is also evidence that the outcomes of cardiac catheterization procedures performed in hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery may be superior to those performed in hospitals where onsite cardiac surgery is not available. In 2004, the Florida Legislature adopted two bills that, insofar as are relevant to this proceeding, had an impact on the regulatory process related to adult interventional cardiovascular services. The effect of the legislation was to shift the regulation of PCI programs away from CON-based restrictions and towards a licensing process. Both bills established a two-level classification of hospitals providing adult interventional cardiology services. House Bill 329 limited the provision of PCI at hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery to emergent patients and provided, in relevant part, as follows: In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult primary percutaneous cardiac intervention for emergent patients without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. (Emphasis supplied) Senate Bill 182 did not limit PCI services on the basis of onsite cardiac surgery availability and provided, in relevant part, as follows: Section 2. Notwithstanding conflicting provisions in House Bill 329, Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: * * * In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. (Emphasis added) Both the House Bill and the Senate Bill were signed into law. The legislation was codified as Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2004), which provided, in relevant part, as follows: 408.0361 Cardiology services and burn unit licensure.-- * * * In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. Extensive evidence was offered at the hearing to support both sides of the debate regarding the appropriateness of performing elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery, and it is clear that the debate continues. However, the evidence establishes that the Florida Legislature specifically chose not to restrict non-emergent PCI to Florida hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery units and has determined that properly-licensed Florida hospitals may provide PCI services without regard to the availability of on-site cardiac surgery. It is reasonable to assume that had the Legislature intended to restrict provision of adult PCI in hospitals without cardiac surgery programs to emergent patients, the "notwithstanding" language contained in Senate Bill 182 would not have been adopted. There is no credible evidence that the Legislature was unaware of the continuing debate within the cardiology community at the time the legislation was adopted in 2004. The Legislature has acknowledged the distinction between emergent and elective PCI as indicated by Subsection 408.036(3)(o), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides under certain circumstances that a hospital without an approved "open heart surgery program" can obtain an exemption from CON requirements and provide emergent PCI services to "patients presenting with emergency myocardial infarctions." It is reasonable to assume that had the codification of the 2004 legislation been incorrect, the Florida Legislature would have subsequently amended the statute to reinstate the restriction. In fact, the Legislature has revised the referenced statute without substantively altering the relevant language establishing the two-level licensure designation. Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2008), the current statute directing AHCA to adopt the rules at issue in this proceeding, provides, in relevant part, as follows: 408.0361 Cardiovascular services and burn unit licensure.-- Each provider of diagnostic cardiac catheterization services shall comply with rules adopted by the agency that establish licensure standards governing the operation of adult inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization programs. The rules shall ensure that such programs: Comply with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiac Catheterization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories. Perform only adult inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization services and will not provide therapeutic cardiac catheterization or any other cardiology services. Maintain sufficient appropriate equipment and health care personnel to ensure quality and safety. Maintain appropriate times of operation and protocols to ensure availability and appropriate referrals in the event of emergencies. Demonstrate a plan to provide services to Medicaid and charity care patients. Each provider of adult cardiovascular services or operator of a burn unit shall comply with rules adopted by the agency that establish licensure standards that govern the provision of adult cardiovascular services or the operation of a burn unit. Such rules shall consider, at a minimum, staffing, equipment, physical plant, operating protocols, the provision of services to Medicaid and charity care patients, accreditation, licensure period and fees, and enforcement of minimum standards. The certificate-of-need rules for adult cardiovascular services and burn units in effect on June 30, 2004, are authorized pursuant to this subsection and shall remain in effect and shall be enforceable by the agency until the licensure rules are adopted. Existing providers and any provider with a notice of intent to grant a certificate of need or a final order of the agency granting a certificate of need for adult cardiovascular services or burn units shall be considered grandfathered and receive a license for their programs effective on the effective date of this act. The grandfathered licensure shall be for at least 3 years or until July 1, 2008, whichever is longer, but shall be required to meet licensure standards applicable to existing programs for every subsequent licensure period. In establishing rules for adult cardiovascular services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. For a hospital seeking a Level I program, demonstration that, for the most recent 12-month period as reported to the agency, it has provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged or transferred at least 300 inpatients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease and that it has a formalized, written transfer agreement with a hospital that has a Level II program, including written transport protocols to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. For a hospital seeking a Level II program, demonstration that, for the most recent 12-month period as reported to the agency, it has performed a minimum of 1,100 adult inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations, of which at least 400 must be therapeutic catheterizations, or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged at least 800 patients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Establishment of appropriate hours of operation and protocols to ensure availability and timely referral in the event of emergencies. Demonstration of a plan to provide services to Medicaid and charity care patients. In order to ensure continuity of available services, the holder of a certificate of need for a newly licensed hospital that meets the requirements of this subsection may apply for and shall be granted Level I program status regardless of whether rules relating to Level I programs have been adopted. To qualify for a Level I program under this subsection, a hospital seeking a Level I program must be a newly licensed hospital established pursuant to a certificate of need in a physical location previously licensed and operated as a hospital, the former hospital must have provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations for the most recent 12- month period as reported to the agency, and the newly licensed hospital must have a formalized, written transfer agreement with a hospital that has a Level II program, including written transport protocols to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. A hospital meeting the requirements of this subsection may apply for certification of Level I program status before taking possession of the physical location of the former hospital, and the effective date of Level I program status shall be concurrent with the effective date of the newly issued hospital license. (5)(a) The agency shall establish a technical advisory panel to develop procedures and standards for measuring outcomes of adult cardiovascular services. Members of the panel shall include representatives of the Florida Hospital Association, the Florida Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons, the Florida Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, and the Florida Chapter of the American Heart Association and others with experience in statistics and outcome measurement. Based on recommendations from the panel, the agency shall develop and adopt rules for the adult cardiovascular services that include at least the following: A risk adjustment procedure that accounts for the variations in severity and case mix found in hospitals in this state. Outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance in Level I and Level II adult cardiovascular services. Such standards may include, but shall not be limited to, in-hospital mortality, infection rates, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, length of stay, postoperative bleeds, and returns to surgery. Specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans. Hospitals licensed for Level I or Level II adult cardiovascular services shall participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons. As required by Subsection 408.0361(5), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA created the TAP, which convened and met over the course of two years at a series of public hearings. The TAP also received written materials and comments from interested parties. Thereafter, AHCA convened rule development workshops to formulate the proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. The proposed rules were initially noticed in the September 28, 2007, Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 33, No. 39). Subsequent Notices of Changes to the proposed rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weeklies of November 16, 2007 (Vol. 33, No. 46); March 28, 2008 (Vol. 34, No. 13); and May 9, 2008 (Vol. 34, No. 19). There is no evidence that AHCA failed to comply with statutory requirements related to the rule adoption process. As required by Subsection 408.0361(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), the proposed rules set forth the procedures by which a hospital may apply for licensure as a Level I or Level II provider of adult cardiovascular services without differentiation based on the availability of on-site cardiac surgery. The proposed rules applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level I provider of adult cardiovascular services are set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16). The proposed rules applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level II provider of adult cardiovascular services are set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17). Subsection 408.0361(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), establishes minimum volume reporting requirements for licensure as a Level I program. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(16)(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows: 1. A hospital seeking a license for a Level I adult cardiovascular services program shall submit an application on a form provided by the Agency (See Form 1: Level I Adult Cardiovascular Services License Application Attestation; AHCA Form, Section 18(a) of this rule ), signed by the chief executive officer of the hospital, attesting that, for the most recent 12-month period, the hospital has provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged or transferred at least 300 inpatients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (defined by ICD-9-CM codes 410.0 through 414.9). Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures are defined as single sessions with a patient in the hospital’s cardiac catheterization procedure room(s), irrespective of the number of specific procedures performed during the session. Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures shall be limited to those provided and billed for by the Level I licensure applicant and shall not include procedures performed at the hospital by physicians who have entered into block leases or joint venture agreements with the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) Subsection 408.0361(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2008), establishes minimum volume reporting requirements for licensure as a Level II program. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(a) provides in relevant part as follows: 1. A hospital seeking a license for a Level II adult cardiovascular services program shall submit an application on a form provided by the Agency (See Form 2: Level II Adult Cardiovascular Services License Application Attestation; AHCA Form , Section 18(b) of this rule ) to the Agency, signed by the chief executive officer of the hospital, attesting that, for the most recent 12-month period, the hospital has provided a minimum of a minimum of 1,100 adult inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations, of which at least 400 must be therapeutic cardiac catheterizations, or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged at least 800 patients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (defined by ICD-9-CM codes 410.0 through 414.9). a. Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures shall be limited to those provided and billed for by the Level II licensure applicant and shall not include procedures performed at the hospital by physicians who have entered into block leases or joint venture agreements with the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) St. Anthony's asserts that the proposed rule is invalid on the grounds that it fails to provide a clear and reasonable methodology for assessing and verifying the number of diagnostic catheterization procedures performed. St. Anthony's asserts that the exclusion of cardiac catheterization procedures performed within the hospital's cardiac cath lab but not billed by the hospital is arbitrary and capricious, modifies, enlarges, or contravenes the specific provisions of the statute implemented, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decision making, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The evidence fails to support these assertions. Although the phrase "block lease" is undefined by statute or rule, the evidence establishes that insofar as relevant to this proceeding, the term refers to a practice by which a group of cardiologists lease blocks of time from a hospital for exclusive use of a hospital's cardiac cath lab. St. Anthony's has a leasing arrangement with a group of cardiologists identified as the "Heart and Vascular Institute South" ("HAVI South") whereby St. Anthony's leases blocks of time in a cardiac cath lab to HAVI South cardiologists. The facility is located in a privately-owned medical office building physically attached to St. Anthony's hospital building. St. Anthony's leases the medical office building from a developer. HAVI South cardiologists perform cardiac catheterization procedures at the St. Anthony's facility during both leased and non-leased time. St. Anthony's provides personnel to staff the cardiac cath lab regardless of whether the procedure is performed during leased or non-leased time. The HAVI South cardiology group develops the schedule of cardiac catheterization procedures to be performed during the leased time and notifies St. Anthony's of the schedule. The HAVI South cardiology group bills for both their professional fees and the facility charges (referred to as the "technical component") for the cardiac catheterization procedures performed during leased time. St. Anthony's does not bill for cardiac catheterization procedures performed during the leased time. For the cardiac catheterization procedures performed during non-leased time, the HAVI South cardiology group bills for professional fees, and St. Anthony's bills for the technical component. Patricia Sizemore, vice-president for patient services at St. Anthony's, acknowledged that other hospitals could have block-leasing arrangements different from those existing between St. Anthony's and the HAVI South group. The proposed rules would preclude St. Anthony's from including the outpatient cardiac catheterization procedures done by HAVI South during the block-leased time within those procedures available to meet the numeric threshold requirements identified in the statute. The evidence fails to establish that the proposed rule fails to provide a clear and reasonable methodology for assessing and verifying the number of diagnostic catheterization procedures performed. The relevant language of Subsection 408.0361(3), Florida Statutes (2008), identifies the hospital as the applicant and requires that the applicant "provide" the procedures or discharges being reported to meet the specified volume thresholds. The applicable definition of hospital is set forth at Subsection 408.032(11), Florida Statutes (2008), which defines a hospital as a health care facility licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Subsection 395.002(12), Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the following definition: (12) "Hospital" means any establishment that: Offers services more intensive than those required for room, board, personal services, and general nursing care, and offers facilities and beds for use beyond 24 hours by individuals requiring diagnosis, treatment, or care for illness, injury, deformity, infirmity, abnormality, disease, or pregnancy; and Regularly makes available at least clinical laboratory services, diagnostic X- ray services, and treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care, or other definitive medical treatment of similar extent, except that a critical access hospital, as defined in s. 408.07, shall not be required to make available treatment facilities for surgery, obstetrical care, or similar services as long as it maintains its critical access hospital designation and shall be required to make such facilities available only if it ceases to be designated as a critical access hospital. Physicians are not "hospitals" and are not licensed or regulated by Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Physicians are not authorized to apply for licensure under the provisions of the statute and proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. Nothing in the statute suggests that entities other than hospitals may apply for licensure of a Level I or Level II adult cardiovascular services program. The rationale underlying the restriction of reportable procedures to those for which the applicant hospital issues bills for payment is based upon AHCA's reasonable intention to validate the procedure volume data submitted by applicant hospitals. Jeffrey Gregg, chief of AHCA's Bureau of Health Facility Regulation and CON Unit, testified that "the only practical, realistic way" for AHCA to routinely verify the accuracy of the procedure volume identified by a hospital's licensure application is through AHCA's ambulatory patient database. The reporting requirements for the ambulatory patient database are set forth at Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59B-9 and include elements such as demographic information, diagnosis codes, and charges. The database provides AHCA with access to patient record documentation and directly allows AHCA to verify the procedure volume identified in the licensure application. Because St. Anthony's has no charges related to the procedures performed by HAVI South cardiologists during the leased time, St. Anthony's has not reported procedures performed during leased time to the ambulatory patient database. St. Anthony's reports far more cardiac catheterization procedures to the local Suncoast Health Council than it does to AHCA's ambulatory patient database and asserts that AHCA could rely on health council data. AHCA has no organizational relationship with the local health council, and the evidence fails to establish that such data is as reliable as that collected by the ambulatory patient database. AHCA asserts that an additional basis to exclude procedures performed by entities other than the applicant hospital is that AHCA has no direct regulatory authority over the non-hospital entity. St. Anthony's asserts that AHCA would have its customary authority over the hospital and, by extension, over the third-party leasing the cardiac cath lab from the hospital. At best, AHCA's authority to obtain records from the non-hospital operator of the hospital's cardiac cath lab is unclear. St. Anthony's position effectively would permit a third-party operator to lease all of the time in a hospital's cardiac cath lab, yet allow the hospital to apply for and receive an adult cardiovascular service license. Nothing in Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2008), suggests that the Legislature intended to provide such an option. The proposed rule designating the reportable cardiac catheterization procedures is logical and rational, is not arbitrary or capricious, and does not modify, enlarge or contravene the specific provisions of the statute implemented. The evidence fails to establish that the designation of appropriately reportable cardiac catheterization procedures constitutes a failure to establish adequate standards for agency decision making or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. Subsection 408.0361(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the proposed rules include provisions "that allow for" compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines for "staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety." Subsection 408.0361(5), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the TAP "develop procedures and standards for measuring outcomes" and that, based thereon, AHCA adopt rules that include a risk adjustment procedure that accounts for variations in severity and case mix, outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance, and "specific steps to be taken by the agency and the licensed hospitals" that fail to meet outcome standards. The statute also requires that licensed hospitals participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The TAP determined that the appropriate method of measuring outcome was to utilize the data available through the clinical outcome reporting systems referenced in the statute. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a) identifies the guidelines applicable to Level I adult cardiovascular services; identifies the specific provisions of the guidelines with which a Level I hospital must comply; requires that the Level I hospital participate in the statutorily-identified data reporting system; and requires that Level I hospitals document a quality improvement plan to meet performance measures set forth by the data reporting system. The proposed rule provides, in relevant part, as follows: All providers of Level I adult cardiovascular services programs shall operate in compliance with subsection 59A- 3.2085(13), F.A.C., the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) guidelines regarding the operation of adult diagnostic cardiac catheterization laboratories and the provision of percutaneous coronary intervention. The applicable guidelines, herein incorporated by reference, are the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Aspects of the guideline related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. Aspects of the guideline related to the provision of elective percutaneous coronary intervention only in hospitals authorized to provide open heart surgery are not applicable to this rule. Hospitals are considered to be in compliance with the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) guidelines when they adhere to standards regarding staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Hospitals must also document an ongoing quality improvement plan to ensure that the cardiac catheterization program and the percutaneous coronary intervention program meet or exceed national quality and outcome benchmarks reported by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Level I adult cardiovascular service providers shall report to the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry in accordance with the timetables and procedures established by the Registry. All data shall be reported using the specific data elements, definitions and transmission format as set forth by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a) identifies the guidelines applicable to Level II adult cardiovascular services; identifies the specific provisions of the guidelines with which a Level II hospital must comply; requires that the Level II hospital participate in the statutorily-identified data reporting system; and requires that Level II hospitals document a quality improvement plan to meet performance measures set forth by the data reporting system. The proposed rule provides in relevant part as follows: All providers of Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall operate in compliance with subsections 59A-3.2085(13) and 59A-3.2085(16), F.A.C. and the applicable guidelines of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association regarding the operation of diagnostic cardiac catheterization laboratories, the provision of percutaneous coronary intervention and the provision of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The applicable guidelines, herein incorporated by reference, are the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; and ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Aspects of the guidelines related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. Hospitals are considered to be in compliance with the guidelines in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; and in the ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons when they adhere to standards regarding staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Hospitals must also document an ongoing quality improvement plan to ensure that the cardiac catheterization program, the percutaneous coronary intervention program and the cardiac surgical program meet or exceed national quality and outcome benchmarks reported by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. In addition to the requirements set forth in subparagraph (16)(a)7. of this rule, each hospital licensed to provide Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. The Petitioners generally assert that the proposed rules insufficiently identify or establish the minimum standards identified as "guidelines" and "benchmarks" in the rule. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The guidelines are specifically identified and incorporated by reference within the rule. There is no evidence that the documents identified do not constitute the "most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association" as required by the statute. Hospitals are not obligated to meet all of the requirements set forth in the guidelines. A licensed hospital is deemed to be in compliance when, as specified in the statute, the hospital adheres to the standards related to staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. The Petitioners generally assert that such distinctions between the various compliance elements are unclear. The evidence fails to support the assertion. There is no credible evidence that the guidelines, albeit technical and complex, are not commonly understood by appropriate medical practitioners and hospital administrators. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)5. is vague on grounds that it requires Level I hospitals to operate in compliance with the referenced guidelines while Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. authorizes provision of elective PCI at Level I hospitals. Martin Memorial further asserts that because the proposed rules provide for elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgical programs, the proposed rules enlarge, modify or contravene the enacting statute. Subsection 408.0361(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that AHCA include "provisions that allow for" the following: Compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. (Emphasis supplied) Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. provides as follows: Notwithstanding guidelines to the contrary in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), all providers of Level I adult cardiovascular services programs may provide emergency and elective percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Aspects of the guidelines related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. (Emphasis supplied) Martin Memorial's disagreement with the proposed rule is premised on the following statement in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update: Elective PCI should not be performed at institutions that do not provide onsite cardiac surgery. (Level of Evidence: C) The statement is contained within subsection 4.3 ("Role of Onsite Cardiac Surgical Backup") within Section 4 ("Institutional and Operator Competency"). The statement is defined as a "Class III" standard, meaning within the "conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful." According to the "Level of Evidence: C" identification, the statement reflects "consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard of care." A footnote to the statement provides as follows: Several centers have reported satisfactory results based on careful case selection with well-defined arrangements for immediate transfer to a surgical program (citation omitted). A small but real fraction of patients undergoing elective PCI will experience a life-threatening complication that could be managed with the immediate onsite availability of cardiac surgical support but cannot be managed effectively by urgent transfer. Wennberg, et al., found higher mortality in the Medicare database for patients undergoing elective PCI in institutions without onsite cardiac surgery (citation omitted). This recommendation may be subject to revision as clinical data and experience increase. The guidelines are statements of "best practices" in health care delivery. They are intended to assist practitioners and facility administrators in making appropriate decisions. The cited statement neither prohibits nor requires performance of elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgical programs. Whether a practitioner performs elective PCI in a licensed Level I hospital remains a medical decision under the provisions of the enacting statute and proposed rules. The footnote recognizes that elective PCI is available at some hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery through "careful case selection with well-defined arrangements for immediate transfer to a surgical program." The proposed rule specifically establishes staff and transfer requirements designed to facilitate rapid transfer of a patient from a Level I to a Level II facility. There is no evidence that such staff and transfer requirements are insufficient or otherwise inappropriate. Patient selection criteria are those which expressly identify clinical presentations of patients who are appropriate for revascularization through PCI. Section 5 of the referenced ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update, titled "Clinical Presentations" explicitly addresses such criteria and constitutes the patient selection criteria contained within the document. The patient selection criteria do not regulate the location where PCI procedures are performed. As stated previously, the Florida Legislature, presented with the option of limiting the availability of cardiac catheterization services available at Level I hospitals to emergent patients, rejected the limitation. The evidence fails to establish that Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)5. is vague or that Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. enlarges, modifies or contravenes the enacting statute. Martin Memorial and St. Anthony's assert that the proposed rule contravenes Subsection 408.0361(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides that AHCA adopt rules that include "at least the following" elements: A risk adjustment procedure that accounts for the variations in severity and case mix found in hospitals in this state. Outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance in Level I and Level II adult cardiovascular services. Such standards may include, but shall not be limited to, in-hospital mortality, infection rates, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, length of stay, postoperative bleeds, and returns to surgery. Specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans. The TAP recommended to AHCA that existing outcome data reporting systems created by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons be utilized for data collection related to licensed hospital adult cardiovascular services programs. Subsection 408.0361(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that hospitals licensed under the proposed rules participate in clinical reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The requirement was adopted by the 2007 Legislature based on the TAP recommendation. Proposed Rule 51A-3.2085(16)(a)8. requires licensed Level I hospitals to participate in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) and sets forth additional directives related to such participation. The ACC-NCDR system is a risk adjusted outcome reporting system that accounts for variation in severity and case mix. It collects approximately 200 data elements and is in use in approximately 2,000 hospitals. Proposed Rule 51A-3.2085(17)(a)6. directs licensed Level II hospitals to participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database (STS database) and sets forth additional requirements related to such participation. The STS database provides information generally similar to the ACC-NCDR database. Although Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)5. states that the Level II hospital must meet or exceed the performance standards identified within the ACC-NCDR, there appears to be no specific requirement in the proposed rules that a Level II hospital participate in the ACC-NCDR system. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)6. contains a citation to Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085 (16)(a)7. The cited paragraph consists of text that is similar to the paragraph preceding the citation. The intent of the reference is unclear. If the reference were intended to incorporate the ACC- NCDR reporting requirements with those applicable to Level II hospitals, the citation in Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)6. should have been to Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)8., where the ACC-NCDR requirements are identified. In any event, the statute requires participation by licensed hospitals in the reporting systems, and, as stated previously, Level II hospitals must document plans to ensure that the cited standards are met; so, it is logical to presume that Level II hospitals will participate in the ACC-NCDR system, in addition to the STS database. Martin Memorial and St. Anthony's assert that the proposed rule does not include the "outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance" required by Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), and that the proposed rules fail to identify the "national quality and outcome benchmarks" referenced therein. The evidence fails to support the assertions. 93. Proposed Rules 59A-3.2085(16)(a)7. and 59A- 3.2085(17)(a)5. require that each licensed hospital must document a "quality improvement plan to ensure" that the specified cardiac services meet or exceed "national quality and outcome benchmarks" reported by the ACC-NCDR and the STS databases. The word "benchmark" is not defined by statute or rule. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines "benchmark" as "a point of reference from which measurements may be made" or "something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged." The evidence establishes that the "national quality and outcome benchmarks" referenced in the proposed rules are the "expected levels of performance" identified through the ACC-NCDR system. Each hospital participating in the ACC-NCDR system receives a detailed quarterly outcome report indicating the particular hospital's performance relative to all other reporting hospitals on a variety of elements associated with cardiac catheterization and PCI provided at the hospital. Accompanying each periodic report is an "Executive Summary" that identifies the relative performance of the hospital receiving the report on ten specific "PCI and Diagnostic Catheterization Performance Measures," including six "PCI Quality Measures," two "PCI Utilization Measures," and two "Diagnostic Quality Measures." The Executive Summary information visually displays the data through a set of "box and whisker plots" that present the range of data reported by all participating hospitals on each specific measure. The summary received by each hospital identifies its specific performance through an "arrow" and numeric data printed on the plot. The plot visually displays "lagging" and "leading" performance levels. The plot identifies hospitals performing below the tenth percentile of all participating hospitals as "lagging" hospitals. The plot identifies hospitals performing above the 90th percentile as "leading" hospitals. The evidence, including review of the ACC-NCDR data reporting system, establishes that the "expected levels of performance" are rationally those levels within the broad range of hospitals which are neither "leading" nor "lagging" according to the data. It is reasonable to assume that a "leading" hospital is performing at a level higher than expected and that a "lagging" hospital is performing at a level lower than expected. By reviewing the plot for each measure, a hospital can determine its performance relative to other participating hospitals on the ten measures included in the Executive Summary. The additional numeric data contained within the quarterly report permit additional comparison between an individual hospital and all other participating hospitals. Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), does not require that AHCA establish numeric minimal standards, but only requires that the rule identify "outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance." The ACC-NCDR reporting system required by the statute and adopted by the proposed rules sufficiently identifies expected levels of performance. By their very nature, the outcome standards are not fixed. It is reasonable to presume that as hospital practices change, measurements of relative performance will also change. The rule requires only that each licensed hospital include within a quality improvement plan, documentation to ensure that such outcome standards will be met or exceeded, essentially encouraging a pattern of continual improvement by licensed programs. Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the rule include the "specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans." The proposed rule complies with the requirements of the statute. Enforcement of outcome standards requirements applicable to Level I programs is addressed at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(f) which provides as follows: Enforcement of these rules shall follow procedures established in Rule 59A-3.253, F.A.C. Unless in the view of the Agency there is a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients, Level I adult cardiovascular services programs that fail to meet provisions of this rule shall be given 15 days to develop a plan of correction that must be accepted by the Agency. Failure of the hospital with a Level I adult cardiovascular services program to make improvements specified in the plan of correction shall result in the revocation of the program license. The hospital may offer evidence of mitigation and such evidence could result in a lesser sanction. Enforcement of outcome standards requirements applicable to Level II programs is addressed at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(e), which provides as follows: Enforcement of these rules shall follow procedures established in Rule 59A-3.253, F.A.C. Unless in the view of the Agency there is a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients, Level II adult cardiovascular services programs that fail to meet provisions of this rule shall be given 15 days to develop a plan of correction that must be accepted by the Agency. Failure of the hospital with a Level II adult cardiovascular services program to make improvements specified in the plan of correction shall result in the revocation of the program license. The hospital may offer evidence of mitigation and such evidence could result in a lesser sanction. AHCA does not routinely conduct surveys of accredited hospitals. Such surveys are conducted by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). AHCA generally conducts hospital surveys only during the investigation, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.253(8), of a complaint filed against a hospital. AHCA would likely review ACC-NCDR and Society of Thoracic Surgeons data reports associated with the investigation of a specific complaint related to adult cardiovascular services. Assuming that AHCA's review of the data identified a deficiency, the proposed rules provide the licensee a 15-day period to develop a plan of correction acceptable to AHCA, unless the issue poses "a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients" in which case it is reasonable to expect that a more prompt resolution of a deficiency would be required. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 3.253, a hospital could be sanctioned for failing to submit a plan of correction related to an identified deficiency, or for failing to implement actions to correct deficiencies specified in an approved plan of correction. There is no evidence that AHCA's enforcement authority under the proposed rules differs in any significant manner from the general enforcement authority already available to the agency. There is no evidence that the proposed rules would result in any alteration of AHCA's investigative practices. Martin Memorial notes that, while the proposed rule provides a 15-day period for development of a plan of correction, AHCA's general enforcement rules already provide a ten-day period and asserts that the proposed rule is therefore inconsistent, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The specific time period set forth in the proposed rule is clearly applicable, and there is no credible evidence of legitimate confusion in this regard. AHCA has suggested that "lagging" hospitals could be specifically regarded as failing to meet the outcome benchmarks identified in the ACC-NCDR data, but the proposed rule makes no specific reference to any systematic classification of hospital performance, and the statute does not require that a minimal performance level be established. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(a)6. is capricious because it requires that "each hospital licensed to provide Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database," but only physicians can participate in the database. The enacting statute requires such participation. Subsection 408.0361(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), directs AHCA to adopt rules that require Level I or Level II licensed hospitals to "participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons." The proposed rule clearly implements the directive established by the statute. There is no credible evidence that the proposed rule is irrational or that a licensed Level II hospital would be unable to meet the obligations of the rule by requiring that its thoracic surgeons participate in the STS database. Martin Memorial asserts that the requirement that an applicant hospital's chief executive officer attest to compliance with certain guidelines is vague because "it is unclear what guidelines apply and what guidelines will not." The evidence fails to support the assertion. The referenced requirement applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level I facility is set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)2., which provides as follows: The request [for licensure] shall attest to the hospital’s intent and ability to comply with the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention); including guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. The referenced requirement applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level II facility is set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)2., which provides as follows: The request [for licensure] shall attest to the hospital’s intent and ability to comply with applicable guidelines in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-2; in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention); and in the ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, including guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)6. designates the guidelines applicable to the operation of Level I hospital services. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a) designates the guidelines applicable to the operation of Level II hospital services. The specific elements of the referenced guidelines are identified in both the statute and the proposed rules. Martin Memorial asserts that the proposed rule is vague as to training requirements applicable for physicians performing elective PCI in Level I hospitals. In making the assertion, Martin Memorial references training requirements established at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b)2. and applicable to Level I physicians performing emergent PCI with less than 12 months experience. There is no credible evidence that the proposed rule is vague. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b), in relevant part, provides as follows: Each cardiologist shall be an experienced physician who has performed a minimum of 75 interventional cardiology procedures, exclusive of fellowship training and within the previous 12 months from the date of the Level I adult cardiovascular licensure application or renewal application. Physicians with less than 12 months experience shall fulfill applicable training requirements in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) prior to being allowed to perform emergency percutaneous coronary interventions in a hospital that is not licensed for a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. The rule provides that a physician with less than 12 months experience working in a Level I facility can perform emergent PCI only if applicable training requirements have been met. The proposed rule does not authorize performance of elective PCI in a Level I hospital by a physician not meeting the minimum annual procedure volume requirements. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(b) clearly identifies the requirements applicable to Level II physicians and in relevant part provides as follows: Each cardiac surgeon shall be Board certified. New surgeons shall be Board certified within 4 years after completion of their fellowship. Experienced surgeons with greater than 10 years experience shall document that their training and experience preceded the availability of Board certification. Each cardiologist shall be an experienced physician who has performed a minimum of 75 interventional cardiology procedures, exclusive of fellowship training and within the previous 12 months from the date of the Level II adult cardiovascular licensure application or renewal application. Martin Memorial asserts that the experience requirements set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b)3. (related to Level I hospitals) and Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(b)3. (related to Level II hospitals) are arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The text of both proposed rules provides as follows: The nursing and technical catheterization laboratory staff shall be experienced in handling acutely ill patients requiring intervention or balloon pump. Each member of the nursing and technical catheterization laboratory staff shall have at least 500 hours of previous experience in dedicated cardiac interventional laboratories at a hospital with a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. They shall be skilled in all aspects of interventional cardiology equipment, and must participate in a 24-hour-per-day, 365 day-per-year call schedule. Martin Memorial argues that there is no evidence to suggest that 500 hours of experience indicates that appropriate competency levels has been achieved. The evidence establishes that the required experience level was developed by AHCA's hospital licensure unit staff and is the training level currently applicable for hospitals providing emergency PCI services under existing exemptions from CON requirements. The training requirements are not arbitrary or capricious. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(c)1. is arbitrary or capricious. The cited rule requires that a Level I hospital make provisions for the transfer of an emergent patient to a Level II hospital, as follows: A hospital provider of Level I adult cardiovascular services program must ensure it has systems in place for the emergent transfer of patients with intra-aortic balloon pump support to one or more hospitals licensed to operate a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. Formalized written transfer agreements developed specifically for emergency PCI patients must be developed with a hospital that operates a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. Written transport protocols must be in place to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. Transfer time is defined as the number of minutes between the recognition of an emergency as noted in the hospital’s internal log and the patient’s arrival at the receiving hospital. Transfer and transport agreements must be reviewed and tested at least every 3 months, with appropriate documentation maintained. Martin Memorial asserts that the rule is arbitrary or capricious because it does not include a requirement that a Level I hospital make provisions for the transfer of an elective patient to a Level II hospital. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. There is no evidence that a patient undergoing elective PCI at a Level I would not be regarded as an emergent patient were circumstances such that an emergent transfer to a Level II hospital warranted. There is no credible evidence to suggest a rationale for transferring a non-emergent patient from a Level I to a Level II hospital. Martin Memorial asserts that the proposed rule enlarges, modifies or contravenes the enacting statute on grounds that, although AHCA is directed to adopt rules to ensure compliance "with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiac Catheterization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories," the proposed rule provides that "in case of conflicts between the provisions of this rule and the designated guidelines" the rule provisions "shall prevail." Such provisions appear in Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(13)(j), Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(g), and Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(f). The enacting statute requires that hospitals licensed under the provisions of the proposed rules comply with guidelines "for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety." To the extent that guidelines that relate to elements other than "staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety," the enacting statute does not require compliance by properly- licensed Florida hospitals. Other than as addressed elsewhere herein, the evidence fails to identify any specific conflicts between the guidelines and the proposed rules and, accordingly, fails to establish that the cited proposed rules enlarge, modify or contravene the enacting statute.
