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 At all times pertinent to the issues involved herein, Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida under license number 01271-2. Respondent has been licensed as a registered nurse in Florida since 1951. Since that time she has taken various continuing education courses in the nursing profession and is up-to-date on her continuing education requirements. She began work as a registered nurse with Methodist Hospital in 1967 and remained there until she was terminated 15 years later in December, 1982. According to Mrs. Scott the patient in question here, Mrs. Thornton, was first assigned to her care on the morning of November 26, 1982. This was the first day she met her. Respondent came into Mrs. Thornton's room that morning to get the patient up and ready for the day. At this point, Mrs. Thornton said she did not feel well and was very weak. Instead of a bath, she asked merely for a light sponge bath. The patient was wearing a high-neck "granny flannel" gown which she would not allow the Respondent to remove even to give her the sponge bath. At that time, Mrs. Scott says, Mrs. Thornton had one IV tube connected to an Abbott pump. This IV was connected to the patient's right forearm. Mrs. Scott did not see nor did she know that Mrs. Thornton had a subclavian catheter installed. Mrs. Scott contends that when she did rounds with Dr. Eye in the afternoon of November 26, he advised her to discontinue the IV in Mrs. Thornton's arm because of puffiness of the arm where the IV was connected. When she went to do that, she states she noticed one suture on the inside of the patient's right arm just above the elbow which was not connected to the IV. She showed this to Dr. Eye, who told her to take it out. As a result, she removed the suture and took out the intravenous tube from the right arm. At this point, she asked Dr. Eye if he wanted to send it to the lab and he said no. As a result, she put the IV set and all other throwaways in the wastebasket. At this point, Dr. Eye gave her an oral order to apply warm compresses to the arm. This order was subsequently reduced to writing. Mrs. Scott categorically denied having removed a left subclavian catheter from Mrs. Thornton. In fact, because of the gown Mrs. Thornton was wearing, Mrs. Scott denies even knowing that such a catheter had been installed. In any case, she would not have removed it by herself, she says, because she had been taught never to remove a subclavian catheter without someone else being present. She contends the catheter she removed was not a CVP (central venous pressure) catheter, as she subsequently charted by mistake. In that regard, she wrote in her nurse's notes, she says, merely what Dr. Eye had written in his order as to the description of the catheter to be removed. Dr. Eye had indicated in his orders to "D/C central line", which meant to disconnect the central line catheter (here, the subclavian) and because of the tremendous confusion at the nurses' station at the time she wrote her notes, she put in the wrong procedure. The subclavian catheter in question here was installed by Dr. Nunn, Mrs. Thornton's surgeon, on November 19, 1982.. During the procedure he inserted a 20-gauge catheter into the patient through the left subclavian area. He did not install any other catheter of a similar size. Somewhat later, he received a call from Mrs. Thornton's physician, Dr. Garcia, regarding the fact that a portion of the catheter was still in the patient and as a result, he performed surgery to remove it. He found a part of the catheter outside the wall of the subclavian vein and the remainder still in the vein. The entire portion of the catheter that was left in the patient was removed and the patient recovered satisfactorily from the surgery. In this regard, the danger inherent in leaving a piece of a catheter like this one inside a patient is that the broken remains could cause blockage of either a coronary artery, or if in the vein, a venal blockage. A third possibility is that of infection though this is somewhat more remote. According to Dr. Nunn, there are various causes for a catheter to break. The catheter may be subjected to rough treatment. The catheter itself may be weak. The catheter could be cut by the person removing it when the suture holding it in place is cut, and, although quite unlikely, the catheter might be broken when it is passed through the needle used to insert it. In Dr. Nunn's experience going back to 1955, however, he has never seen an instance where part of a subclavian catheter was left in a patient by accident. Mrs. Grace E. Davis, Mrs. Thornton's daughter, recalls that on the day Mrs. Thornton was released from the hospital, Mrs. Davis had to wait for her in the waiting room while an additional procedure was accomplished prior to the discharge. As Mrs. Davis recalls, when they got home from the hospital, she asked her mother why they had had to wait and Mrs. Thornton said that it was for the purpose of removing the catheter in her heart through which she was getting nitroglycerin. According to Dr. Earl T. Cullins, who reviewed Mrs. Thornton's medical records, she was in the hospital from November 17 through December 6, 1982. The medical records for that period indicated that the only catheters, IV's, or CVP's in the patient on November 26 may have been an Abbott Intravenous in the right arm and a subclavian catheter on the left side. The records further reveal that Dr. Eye gave verbal orders to disconnect the centerline (catheter) on November 26 and the nurse's notes written by Mrs. Scott indicate that on November 26, a CVP (central venous pressure--centerline catheter) was discontinued by her. CVP insertions are generally made in the subclavian plane or through the jugular vein, with the subclavian insertion being preferred. The records are, according to Dr. Cullins, somewhat confusing. For example, he cannot tell from the records whether the subclavian catheter was -being used for medication or whether it was covered with a pressure dressing on November 26. In any event, the records do not indicate that the left subclavian catheter was removed. Instead, they show that a CVP line (centerline catheter) was removed. While he feels that they are one and the same, he cannot tell for certain whether or not they are. At no place do the records or nurse's notes refer to the two together or as one and the same. Dr. Cullins had much to say about the performance of many of the other professionals involved in this case. For example, he described Dr. Eye as a "spastic" personality and questions the order that Mrs. Scott received to "remove the line." Dr. Cullin feels that if there were two lines in place, it cannot be certainly determined from the notes as to which one she removed. He also contends that Dr. Nunn made a mistake when he inserted the subclavian catheter on November 19 by not taking an X-ray after insertion. Another difficulty with the records, according to Dr. Cullin, is in that they reflect the intravenous needle was inserted in the patient's right hand on November 18 and was thereafter moved from hand to hand until November 26 when all drugs, which required two IV's, were stopped. To Dr. Cullin this indicates that even though the records do not specifically show the second line (other than the fact that the intravenous needle is in the right hand) there had to be one from a medical standpoint. Dr. Cullin is convinced that since the incident took place late in the day, it would not be at all unusual for Mrs. Scott to have mischarted the removal of the intravenous needle from the hand as the CVP needle which is in the only entry relating to removal of any intravenous lines. Dr. Cullin also states that the medical records, which on November 25 reflect "IV site good", and the fact that on- November 25, the nurse's notes refer to a transfer of the patient from the intensive care unit with the CVP line intact, without any other intravenous lines being mentioned, does not mean that there were no other lines. In short, Dr. Cullin is stating that the records are so confused it is impossible to tell whether there was one, two, or more intravenous lines in Mrs. Thornton on November 26, and which one was removed by Mrs. Scott. Ms. Ann Halley, Director of Nursing at Methodist Hospital, became aware of the situation involving Mrs. Thornton when she received a phone call from Dr. Nunn, who had installed the catheter and who told her that when he saw Mrs. Thornton that morning for a follow-up check, about a week after her discharge from the hospital, an X-ray showed that a portion of the subclavian catheter he had installed was still in her chest. Mrs. Thornton was returned to the hospital that afternoon for removal of the remaining piece of catheter, at which time Ms. Halley called for the medical records. when she checked them over, she saw that Respondent was the one who allegedly had removed the catheter. She contacted Ms. Jan G. Headrick, the head nurse on the floor with Mrs. Scott on November 26. Ms. Halley and Ms. Headrick had a discussion with Respondent about the situation during which Respondent admitted she had removed the catheter. In fact, she stated that when she cut the suture, the catheter simply fell out. According to Ms. Halley, Respondent did not actually use the term "subclavian" in regard to the catheter in question. However, in her opinion, there was little indication that Respondent was confused as to which catheter was in issue. Mrs. Thornton's patient records, as they relate to the catheter issue, were reviewed by Dr. Eileen Austin, a consultant with many years experience in the field of nursing. Dr. Austin concluded that a subclavian catheter had been removed from Mrs. Thornton in part by a nurse and that the remaining portion left in at the time of initial removal was surgically removed. Her review of the records revealed that three catheters were inserted during the first period of Mrs. Thornton's hospitalization. These were: An intravenous line inserted in the Patient's right hand on November 18, 1982 initially, but which was restarted several times and moved from hand to hand until it was finally capped on November 22, 1982. A catheter of this nature is always less than one inch in length and is never anywhere near seven and a half inches in length. A sub-clavian catheter inserted on November 19, 1982 which is also inserted in a vein. The purpose of this one appeared, here, too for administering drugs. It is approximately twelve inches in length and was removed, according to the records, by Respon- dent on November 26, 1982. An arterial line installed on November 19, 1982 following inser- tion of the sub-clavian catheter described above. The purpose of this line was for the withdrawal of blood for blood gas determination. It is called an arterial catheter and the longest one Dr. Austin has ever seen is two and a half inches. On the basis of the above, it appears obvious that the only one of the three catheters inserted, according to the records, long enough to have been left in the patient, was the subclavian catheter. A subclavian catheter is inserted into the clavian vessel so that the tip of the catheter is near the heart. It is inserted just below the collarbone. The records here reflected no reference in the nurse's notes after Mrs. Scott indicated removal of the subclavian catheter except for two references to dry dressings over the entry area. According to Dr. Austin, the proper procedure for the removal of a catheter is for the nurse to clip the suture holding the catheter to the skin without cutting the catheter. Thereafter, the nurse withdraws the catheter very carefully and, upon complete withdrawal, compares the length of the portion withdrawn with that of the catheter inserted as described in the patient's records. If a piece is broken off inside the patient, the visual examination in this way will reveal that that taken out is shorter than that put in, thereby indicating that some was left in the patient. Here, according to Dr. Austin, the Respondent failed to exercise proper procedure in two areas: one, she failed to note the length of the catheter inserted so that a comparison with removal could be done and, two, she failed to inspect the tip of the catheter on removal. It should be smooth and round. Anything else indicates that the catheter was broken or cut and part was left therein. This must be immediately reported to the physician. In Dr. Austin's opinion, a nurse who would remove a catheter and fail to insure the entire item was removed, and thereafter fails to report that it was not all removed, is unprofessional and puts the patient in a life- threatening situation. Further, assuming that the Respondent's sole improper activity was in mischarting the actual catheter removed, as Respondent contends, this could constitute substandard performance itself. However, the right arterial catheter in Mrs. Thornton was removed on November 20, 1982 at approximately 2:45 a.m. by Randy G. Martin, the hospital supervisor for the 11 - 7 shift that evening. He removed this catheter because the nurse on duty at the time saw that it was bent and there was some concern that it might break or otherwise do harm. At the time of this operation, Mr. Martin noticed that Mrs. Thornton had a subclavian catheter in place. When the arterial catheter was removed, it was measured and examined to see that the edges were good and then saved for the physician to examine the next day. If this arterial catheter was removed on November 20, it could not have been there on November 26, as Respondent says. Dr. Eye gave certain orders to discontinue all intravenous medication on November 22, 1982. The doctor's orders are as follows: D/C central line Per. with other meds this way Warm heat to rt arm Penicillin 500 mg-p/o Q.I.D. Serum theophyllin 6 hours after dose (scratched out) Room air arterial blood gas Sunday am. D/C all IV medication Dr. Eye's orders O.K.'d w Dr. Garcia Respondent as was stated before, contends she did not remove the subclavian catheter but instead removed the arterial catheter in the right arm, thereafter inaccurately charting its removal as the CVP catheter. She said she did this because she merely quoted the doctor's order. Thorough consideration of the above evidence admitted both for and against the Respondent, considered in light of the inherent probabilities and improbabilities of the evidence, results in the inescapable conclusion that Respondent did in fact withdraw the subclavian catheter from Mrs. Thornton and, in doing so, failed to insure that the entire catheter was removed. As a result, a 5 to 6 centimeter long piece of the catheter was left in Mrs. Thornton's chest which was surgically removed several days later. It is neither alleged nor found that Mrs. Scott was responsible for the catheter breaking. However, the evidence is clear that when she removed the catheter she failed to take those steps necessary and dictated by proper nursing procedures to insure that the entire catheter was removed. An independent examination of Mrs. Thornton's medical records by Dr. Austin, who had no part whatever in the scenario as it was acted at the time in question, revealed that three catheters were inserted in Mrs. Thorton during the period of her initial hospitalization: the subclavian catheter in the left portion of her chest; the arterial catheter in the right arm; and the peripheral catheter in one or both hands from time to time. The arterial catheter was removed by Nurse Martin on November 20, 1982. The peripheral catheter was capped on November 22, 1982. As a result, the only catheter remaining in Mrs. Thornton on November 26, 1982 was the subclavian catheter. when that fact is considered, along with the fact that Mrs. Scott's initial notes, regardless of her current explanation for them, revealed that she removed the CVP catheter (here it should be noted that CVP catheter is, in this case, the same as subclavian catheter), the conclusion is inescapable that she is the individual who removed the subclavian catheter leaving a portion in the patient. There simply is no evidence aliunde Mrs. Scott's own statement that any other catheter remained in the patient on November 26, 1982. This is so notwithstanding the testimony of Mrs. Davis concerning what her deceased aged mother advised happened the day of her discharge. It is difficult to believe that hospital officials would remove a subclavian catheter from Mrs. Thornton on the morning she is released from the hospital and Mrs. Davis' testimony as to that issue is rejected.
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 this case is whether Jose Rosado, M.D., (Respondent), violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Florida law. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0068035. Respondent is board-certified in internal medicine and cardiovascular diseases. On March 10, 1997, Patient W.B.C., a 72-year-old man, arrived at the Leesburg Regional Medical Center (LRMC) emergency room. He complained of a sudden onset of weakness in his left hand and arm with numbness and tingling. Respondent was Patient W.B.C.'s primary care physician. Respondent admitted Patient W.B.C. with a diagnosis of cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome and a history of myocardial infarction. Respondent ordered that Patient W.B.C. undergo a head CT scan, carotid Doppler, 2-D echocardiogram, an electroencephalogram, and a neurological consultation. Based on the test results and the consultation, Respondent diagnosed Patient W.B.C. with right cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome, and history of myocardial infarction. Respondent then discharged the patient with Ticlid, a medication to prevent further cerebrovascular accidents and aspirin. On March 16, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was admitted to LRMC complaining of weakness, dizziness and a fever. His vital signs revealed a temperature of 103.0 F, a pulse of 118, and a blood pressure of 139/75. The emergency room physician ordered a chest x-ray, EKG, and urine and blood cultures. The chest x-ray revealed no acute cardiopulmonary abnormality. Urine tests revealed features consistent with the possibility of urosepsis. Blood work showed a white blood count of 9.15, elevated but within the normal range. Also on March 16, Respondent ordered that antibiotics be given prophylactically until the blood cultures came back from the laboratory. The cultures came back positive for staphylococcus aureus (staph). Staph is a notoriously “bad bug” and Staphylococci aureus bacteremia has a high mortality rate. Staph aureus can originate from several possible sources including infections through the urinary tract system, IV sites, aspiration into the lungs, and pneumonia (although not very common). Staphylococci in the bloodstream is known as bacteremia. Bacteremia can lead to endocarditis which is an infection of the inner lining of the heart and the heart valves. Endocarditis is a life-threatening condition that can quickly damage the heart valves and lead to heart failure or even death. Patients with certain cardiac conditions such as mitral valve regurgitation have a higher risk of developing endocarditis. Patient W.B.C. had such a history. On March 17, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was started on intravenous antibiotics by Respondent. Patient W.B.C. continued to receive the intravenous antibiotics for four days from March 17, 1997, through March 20, 1997. Respondent then switched Patient W.B.C. to oral antibiotics and kept the patient in the hospital one more day prior to discharging him with instruction to continue on the oral antibiotics for another ten days. Patient W.B.C. was discharged on March 21, 1997. He was not referred to an infectious disease specialist nor had Respondent obtained a consultation with any specialist to determine the length of time that the patient's infection should be treated. Respondent felt that he was adequately qualified to treat this patient, and the treatment appeared to work. Respondent thought the bacteria growing in the patient's blood "likely" originated from a lung infection. An infectious disease specialist should have been consulted to give guidance as to how long to treat the infection. The standard of care for treating a staph aureus infection where there is a known source of infection requires 14 days of intravenous antibiotics. Where the source is not known, then four to six weeks of antibiotics is recommended. In this case, the infection, a resistant staph infection found in the patient's blood, could have originated from several sources. While such staph could have sprung from a source in the lung, this is by no means likely and the infection could have originated from another source. The standard of care required that Respondent contact an infectious disease specialist for an evaluation and/or that he treat Patient W.B.C.’s staphylococcus with a minimum of 10 to days of intravenous antibiotics. On or about April 11, 1997, Patient W.B.C., presented to the emergency room at LRMC complaining of congestion, shortness of breath, fever of 100.3° F, and a cough. The emergency room physician performed a physical exam which revealed vital signs of a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104, and a blood pressure of 90/54. A chest x-ray, blood work and a urine culture were ordered. Patient W.B.C. was then admitted on April 11, 1997, with a diagnosis of pneumonia, an old cerebrovascular accident and coronary artery disease. The ER physician started Patient W.B.C. on a plan of treatment which included intravenous antibiotics, Vancomycin, IV fluids, and blood cultures. A physical examination on the patient revealed a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104 and blood pressure of 91/53. The attending physician diagnosed him with probable sepsis with pneumonia. On April 12, 1997, the blood cultures came back positive for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. On April 15, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was afebrile (without fever) and his white blood cell count was 10.23, which is within the normal range of 4.0 to 11.0. The patient continued in this condition through April 18, 1997, despite suffering from sepsis. On April 18, 1997, Respondent approved Patient W.B.C. for transfer to another institution for consideration for urgent mitral valve replacement. On April 19, 1997, Patient W.B.C. arrested and was pronounced dead at 5:53 a.m. Petitioner’s expert, Carlos Sotolongo, M.D., is board- certified in internal medicine, cardiovascular disease and nuclear cardiology. As established by Dr. Sotolongo's testimony, Respondent practiced below the standard of care by failing to treat Patient W.B.C. with a sufficient number of days of intravenous antibiotics and by failing to consult an infectious disease specialist. According to Dr. Sotolongo, there is a difference in the way that an uncomplicated pneumonia is treated as opposed to a pneumonia complicated by bacteremia. The latter must be treated more aggressively. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and imposing a penalty which includes a formal reprimand, payment of an Administrative Fine in the amount of $5,000.00 within 180 days, and eight hours of Continuing Medical Education (CME) to be completed within the next 12 months dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of infections and/or risk management. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Kim M. Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Intervenor, St. Joseph Hospital of Port Charlotte, should be issued Certificate of Need #6202 for the establishment of a cardiac catheterization laboratory at its facility in Port Charlotte, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department was the state agency responsible for the regulation and certification of health care facilities in this state and charged with the responsibility of issuing Certificates of Need, (CON), under the criteria set forth in Section 381.705 Florida Statutes and the Department's Rules. St. Joseph Hospital is a 212 bed general acute care hospital located in Port Charlotte, Florida, within the jurisdiction of the Department's District VIII. It is a not for profit, tax exempt corporation owned by Bon Secours Health Systems, a multi-hospital system. It offers varied medical and surgical services, including obstetrics and pediatrics, and operates a 24 hour emergency room. The facility is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation and Health care Organization, and its laboratory is accredited by the American College of Pathology. Because St. Joseph opened a nursing home in Port Charlotte in 1975, Chapel Manor Nursing Home, Fawcett's predecessor, and at that time, the only nursing home in Port Charlotte, applied for and was issued a CON to convert from a nursing home to an acute care hospital and began operation as Fawcett Memorial Hospital that year. Fawcett is now a 254 bed general medical surgical acute care hospital providing a broad range of services with the exception of obstetrics and pediatrics, and is located directly across the street from St. Joseph. It offers diagnostic cardiac catheterization service only, implementing that service in August, 1989. Both Fawcett and St. Joseph have the same service area and utilize the same physicians on their medical staffs, which are practically identical. St. Joseph offers a full array of cardiology services with the exception of cardiac catheterization. As a result, any St. Joseph patient requiring cardiac catheterization must be discharged from St. Joseph and transferred to another hospital in the area which provides that service. Between January 1989 and February, 1990, approximately 97 St. Joseph patients required transfer because of the fact that St. Joseph had no pertinent program. Because of this fact, and recognizing that the Department had determined there was a numeric need for an additional cardiac catheterization lab within the district, specifically based on the under-served indigent and Medicaid patients, in February, 1990, St. Joseph submitted a letter of intent to file a CON application for the establishment of an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at its facility in District VIII. This letter of intent was based on proper Board Resolution, and was filed not only with the District but also with the local Health Council, and the required notice was published in a local paper. Thereafter, in March, 1990, St. Joseph filed its CON application for the facility, along with the appropriate fee, with the Department, at the same time filing a copy with the local Health Council. The Department responded with an omissions letter, the requirements of which were met by St. Joseph in a timely manner, and the Department thereafter deemed the application complete. Notwithstanding Fawcett's allegations in the post hearing submission that St. Joseph's application was not complete, there was no evidence presented at hearing to so establish, and the Department deemed it both timely and ultimately complete. On on about July 17, 1990, the Department issued its State Agency Action Report and notified St. Joseph of its decision to approve the application. Approximately one month later, in a timely fashion, Fawcett filed its Petition challenging the Department's approval of St. Joseph's application. St. Joseph projects implementation of service by the unit in December, 1992. The unit will encompass approximately 3,800 square feet and will be part of and companion to a larger construction project designed to expand St. Joseph's surgical capacity. It will be located in a proposed two-story addition to the south side of the existing hospital. Total cost of the project, including construction of the building and equipment, is estimated to be approximately $2.6 million, one hundred percent of which will be financed by debt. It is estimated that interest costs over the term of the financing will be an additional $2.25 million. St. Joseph anticipates the charge for a cardiac catheterization will be $6,657.48 in 1993, and $7,123.50 in 1994. This is the same as the average charge for the procedure by existing providers in the district, adjusted for inflation in later years. The facility will be open routinely from 7:00 AM to 2:30 PM, Monday through Friday. An on-call team will, however, be available 24 hours a day although cardiac catheterization, usually an elective procedure, should not require much in the way of emergency services. Dr. Victor Howard, a Board certified internist and cardiologist, who is already on staff at St. Joseph, is projected to be the medical program director for the new facility without additional compensation. Cardiac catheterization is a relatively new diagnostic and therapeutic invasive procedure which involves the insertion of an extremely fine hollow tube through a blood vessel in the groin, up into the patient's heart. Because the patient faces danger from collateral problems such as bleeding, stroke, congestive heart failure and medication reactions, at least three staff members are required to assist the physician performing the catheterization. As with most procedures, the more it is done, the more proficient the individuals doing it become. By the same token, the medical staff assistants to the physician in charge must have specialized skills and training, and the Department rules require that in order to properly provide for therapeutic catheterization patients, an open heart surgery facility must be available within thirty minutes of the facility where the catheterization is being carried out. St. Joseph intends to rely on Medical Center Hospital in Punta Gorda, approximately ten miles away, as the required backup open heart facility. Medical Center is within the maximum thirty minute drive time criteria. It provides not only an open heart surgery program but also both diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheterizations. Diagnostic catheterizations, as opposed to therapeutic catheterizations, can be done on an outpatient basis. Experience has indicated that staff assistant technicians, nurses and others, are frequently not reasonably available. As a result, there is continuing competition between hospitals providing the services requiring these individuals, and this competition is often severe. Nonetheless, Fawcett has, up to the present, been able to recruit and retain adequate numbers of experienced personnel without the necessity for paying a bonus over and above normal salary. By the same token, St. Joseph believes it, too, will be able to attract and retain sufficient numbers of qualified personnel to successfully operate its laboratory as approved. At the present time, St. Joseph has ten registered nurses on staff who have cardiac catheterization laboratory experience. The laboratory, if approved, will not open at St. Joseph until the second half of 1992. At that time, manpower requirements for the project call for 3.36 full time employees, (FTE's), and that number appears capable of being satisfied by the current staff, though a cardiovascular technician, (CVT), has not yet been hired for the lab. In addition, St. Joseph appears to have on hand adequate management and supervisory personnel. It projects salary and benefits expense of almost $140,000.00 in 1993 and almost $150,000.00 in 1994. Maintenance expense is expected to approximately $65,000.00 the second year of operation. The proposed project has been enthusiastically received by the medical community in the service area. Because, in that area, the treating physician determines where the patient will be treated, support for the project by the area cardiologists is important as a positive factor for consideration. Because it has both the financial and personnel resources to provide the service, access to the service will be improved for the medically indigent and the facility's current cardiology program will be enhanced. The Florida legislature has, by its passage of Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, laid the basic analytical framework to be used in determining whether the facility here in question is needed. Consistent with the terms of the enabling statute, the Department has promulgated Rule 10-5.011, F.A.C., to implement the provisions of the statute. The rule formula provides a showing of "need" if at least 300 procedures could be performed by the new program, based on the total number of catheterizations, diagnostic and therapeutic, projected for the District. Projections for Charlotte County alone indicate 180 additional catheterizations between 1989 and 1994. Consistent therewith, the Department has determined that within DHRS District VIII, the pertinent service district, there is a numeric need for one additional cardiac catheterization laboratory. Need, however, goes beyond the question of numeric need. It is also a factual issue that requires an analysis of health planning principles and standards used within the ultimate goal of providing the best quality medical care for the citizens of this state in a sound, economically justified manner. In that regard, it is appropriate to evaluate need with an eye that looks toward avoiding unnecessary and costly duplication of services that are unnecessary. Fawcett contends there is no need for an additional lab in District VIII, based on the underutilization of existing programs. The Department's rule, the use of which resulted in a determination of need for one additional unit, does not regulate capacity. District VIII consists of Sarasota, DeSoto, Glades, Hendry, Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties. Sarasota and Lee Counties each have three cardiac catheterization programs while Collier has one in its only hospital. Charlotte County has two, Fawcett and Medical Center. It has already been noted that Fawcett and St. Joseph are located across the street from one another. Medical Center, which is used for therapeutic catheterizations, is located not far from the other two, and all three are Medicaid providers. All three also serve generally the same service area and use, essentially, the same medical staff. Moreover, the three facilities' cardiology staffs are essentially identical. When evaluating the service availability, however, it must be noted that Charlotte County experienced the highest relative increase in population among all the District VIII counties during the decade of the 1980's, and projections are that it will continue to lead up through 1995. At the present time, Charlotte County has the highest percentage of residents over age 65, (34%), of any of the District VIII counties. Looking at the proposed service in light of the pertinent State Health Plan, that for 1989, four preferences should be considered when evaluating the need for the proposed service. One deals with giving preference to those who propose to establish both cardiac catheterization and open heart surgical services. Since there is no established need for an open heart surgery service in the District, St. Joseph could not and does not plan to provide for one. Consequently, this preference is not pertinent here. The second preference is for those applicants who propose to establish a cardiac catheterization program in a county without any existing program. Again, this is not pertinent to the current situation. The third preference is toward applicants with a history of providing a disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care. Here, St. Joseph is not a disproportionate Medicaid share provider, a point made by Fawcett. By the same token, however, neither is Fawcett. Fawcett did not, over the years, keep an accurate record of the number of patients to whom it provided free medical services, or of the value of those services. It claims it did not realize the importance of those numbers, concerning itself more with the provision of the service rather than with the recording of it. It was not, for most of its existence, however, a Medicaid provider, applying for and gaining that certification as of September l, 1989. Yet, during those non-certified, unrecorded years, it claims to have provided care to patients regardless of their ability to pay. While this claim is accepted as true, it is impossible to quantify it. The fourth preference is given to applicants who agree to provide services to all patients regardless of ability to pay. St. Joseph has agreed to do so and has a history of providing care to the medically indigent. So does Fawcett, but Fawcett is not an applicant, so the preference issue does not, necessarily, apply. It is clear, however, that neither the existing providers nor the applicant are precluded or disqualified as a result of the application of these preferences. Turning to the local, (District) Health Plan, which is also to be considered in the evaluation of the projects, the 1989 update of the District VIII Plan, that pertinent here, also provides for applicants to be evaluated in light of several preferences. One calls for an applicant to provide certain services, all of which are provided currently by St. Joseph. The second preference calls for the laboratory to be open no less than 40 hours a week and to provide a maximum waiting time of one month for simple, elective cases. The evidence presented indicates that the currently operating facilities meet this criteria, but also that St. Joseph will likely do the same if approved. Another preference relates to the proposed program's impact on existing providers in the area. It is here that the parties disagree radically on whether or not such an impact exists. St. Joseph has taken the position that its program will have only minimal impact on the ability of Fawcett and other existing providers to continue to provide quality economic service. On the other hand, Fawcett projects a major negative impact on its services, and claims the Department apparently failed to consider, at the time it did its initial evaluation, whether or not St. Joseph's program would adversely impact on it's existing service. Fawcett contends that its presently improving financial posture will be definitely impacted adversely by St. Joseph's implementation of the new service, if approved, in that its anticipated positive financial improvement will be reduced, if not destroyed, by the opening of St. Joseph's proposed program. Evidence produced by Fawcett tends to indicate that by 1994, if current projections hold true, Charlotte County will experience an increase of only 180 diagnostic catheterizations per year. St. Joseph's projections indicate that in that timeframe it expects to perform 509 diagnostic catheterizations per year. Simple arithmetic, then, would reveal that if those figures are correct, 329 of the 509 projected diagnostic procedures would have to come from the number of procedures performed by both Fawcett and Medical Center. Since approximately 75% of the current cardiac catheterizations performed in Charlotte County are performed at Fawcett, by far the greatest impact would be on that institution. The figures projected indicate a loss by Fawcett, then, of 232 procedures in 1993 and 318 in 1994. Medical Center's projected losses would be somewhat less, but nonetheless, such a reduction, if realized, would result in a loss of revenue to each of the existing providers from current income levels. Fawcett experienced severe financial problems during the past several years prior to the incumbency of the present CEO. In 1987 and 1988, it had financial losses which were improved in 1989 to a result showing a marginal excess of revenue over expenses. For 1990, Fawcett expects to show a profit for the first time in several years. Its prior negative operating result, however, has had a negative impact on its debt to equity ratio which, itself, is significant in that it is used by lenders as an index or flag regarding the financial health of an institution which seeks to borrow money. Because of its poor financial condition in the past, Fawcett was unable recently to borrow money needed for 1990 capital projects, and it is the increasing profit margin, which Fawcett hopes will make it more competitive in the borrowing market, that is most threatened by the proposed initiation of St. Joseph's project. The improved financial picture which Fawcett experienced in the most recent financial years has been directly attributed to the revenue earned by its cardiac catheterization program. In 1989, Fawcett determined that each cardiac catheterization patient contributed $1,927.00 to the hospital's financial health, and Fawcett contends that each patient taken from it by the opening of St. Joseph's proposed program will result in a financial loss to it. Utilizing the 1989 contribution margin projected to 1993 and 1994 reflects that if St. Joseph's program is approved, and if the anticipated numerical patient load is lost, the net financial loss to Fawcett would be in excess of $446,000.00 in 1993 and in excess of $612,000.00 in 1994. If these figures are inflated to 1993 and 1994 dollars, the loss could well be greater. Fawcett contends that it is currently experiencing a healthy improvement in its financial position which it anticipates would be substantially and adversely affected by the loss of cardiac catheterization patients to St. Joseph if that facility's project were approved as proposed. No doubt there would be a negative impact, but the degree thereof is speculative. Both the statute and the rule mentioned previously set forth criteria for the evaluation of these projects. One is the existence of an alternative to the service provided. Whereas St. Joseph contends there is no alternative diagnostic procedure preferable to cardiac catheterization, Fawcett contends there are several alternatives to St. Joseph's proposed project. Nonetheless, prior to its application, St. Joseph considered some alternatives. One was the setting up of a mobile laboratory on an interim basis. Since this could be used only by outpatients, it was determined not to meet the need of those patients requiring an inpatient procedure or of the physicians who would perform in it, and the anticipated $1.3 million cost was considered excessive for a short term fix. It is so found. Another was the possibility of establishing the lab somewhere within the hospital's existing space, but a survey of the facility quickly revealed there is no available existing space. However, since a part of the service proposed by St. Joseph would include outpatient catheterization, this part of the need could be met by the laboratory established in Charlotte County by several cardiologists who practice on the staff of St. Joseph, and who recently established a facility in the county. By the same token, if a need for outpatient procedures is demonstrated, the existing inpatient program could, Fawcett contends, provide it. Finally, is the existence of under-utilized programs at Fawcett and the Medical Center which have existing excess capability which could be considered an adequate and available alternate to the St. Joseph program. Turning to the question of financial feasibility, another evaluation criteria, there is no doubt that St. Joseph has the ability to borrow the capital to make the project financially feasible in the immediate future. St. Joseph's financial condition is sound. As might be expected, there is substantial difference in opinion as to the reasonableness of the pro forma projections submitted by St. Joseph's as evaluated by the Department. In fact, the parties agree to very little. St. Joseph contends that the patient mix estimated in the application is reasonable and based on its experience and that of Lee Memorial Hospital, and that the staffing level is appropriate and reasonable, and there is little to contest. The major difference in positions is in the area of supply costs and the percentage of patients accounted for by Medicare. St. Joseph estimated a supply cost of $248.00 per admission in 1989 dollars, inflated by 7% per year up to 1993 and 1994, but Fawcett contends the actual supply cost in 1989 dollars is $492.00 per admission. Assuming, arguendo, that Fawcett is correct, the projected supply costs would then be increased by in excess of $85,000.00 in 1993 and almost $126,000.00 in 1994, and this would result in a reduction of projected income for the service in both years. Fawcett's evidence and argument here are not persuasive, however. Fawcett also contends that St. Joseph's assumption that 58.9% of the cardiac catheterization patients would be Medicare, a figure which assumes that the Medicare patient utilization for catheterization would be the same as the facility as a whole, is not reasonable. Fawcett relies on the fact that St. Joseph is the sole obstetrics provider in Charlotte County and the majority of these obstetric patients are not Medicare patients. Considering that along with the fact that cardiac catheterization is a service which has a higher level of Medicaid utilization than St. Joseph presently provides, a more likely and reasonable predictor of the Medicare utilization of St. Joseph's program would be the Medicare utilization for the two existing catheterization programs. Fawcett's utilization in that regard is 64.6% and Medical Center's is 70.5%. Extrapolating from those figures, Fawcett contends a reasonable financial projection for St. Joseph's program would be 65% Medicare utilization. Since that type of service is reimbursed on the basis of DRG, the amount of income to the hospital is less, and the resultant contractual allowances, deductions from revenue, would be in excess of $61,000.00 in 1993 and more than $87,000.00 in 1994. Therefore, combining both the increase in projected supply costs and the decrease in projected income from Medicare, Fawcett contends that the projected number of catheterizations in 1994 and 1994, as modified using Fawcett's figures would result in a net reduction of approximately $210,000.00 in the former year and in excess of $126,000.00 in the latter. If those figures prove correct, St. Joseph's proposed program , it is suggested, would apparently not be feasible in the long term. On the other hand, St. Joseph contends its utilization figures for 1993 and 1994 are reasonable in that it projects a volume slightly greater than one-half of the number of procedures accomplished by Fawcett in its first year of operation. St. Joseph's expert evaluated the use projections for the first two complete years of operation and the costs assumptions and found both to be reasonable. Nonetheless, he also accomplished calculations of profitability utilizing Fawcett's suggested increased costs figures, and utilizing three different approaches, ultimately concluded that even looking at the worst case scenario, St. Joseph's proposal would be financially feasible both in the short and the long term. Independent analysis of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the projected staffing level and the salaries and benefits for that staff are reasonable. The anticipated reimbursements on the basis of the DRG's are reasonable. The projected utilization in the first and second years of operation are reasonable, and taken together, the evidence supports the conclusions drawn by St. Joseph's expert. It is so found. Another area for consideration is the impact St. Joseph's program would have on Fawcett's existing program. Fawcett's program has now been in operation for several years and even with approval of St. Joseph's, will continue to operate without competition until the second half of 1992, after which St. Joseph's program would be in a start-up configuration for at least a year. As such, it will be well into 1993 and possibly into 1994 before St. Joseph's program can be considered to have its full impact vis-a-vis the Fawcett program. Fawcett's expert, who concluded that St. Joseph's program would have a serious adverse effect on Fawcett's ability to contribute to its improving financial picture did not consider the fact that Fawcett does not currently perform outpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, and any of that nature done by St. Joseph should have no impact on Fawcett. The expert also did not consider in his analysis of impact any population growth beyond 1990 or growth in the demand for diagnostic catheterization procedures. Fawcett listed approximately $13.7 million in proposed capital expenses over the next five years which, it claims, will be adversely impacted by the effect of St. Joseph's proposed program on its cash picture. Many of the line items within this figure are much the same as normal routine replacement items, and only $3.5 million represent the cost of items specifically identified as needed to meet existing life safety code violations or for accreditation purposes. No doubt there will be some impact on Fawcett's operation by the opening of St. Joseph's program, yet Fawcett has not demonstrated clearly that the impact will result in a return to the pre-1990 negative cash position which was shown to now be reversing. Even accepting Fawcett's expert's assumptions, the likelihood is great that Fawcett's equity balance would increase by over $900,000.00 from 1992 to 1993 and by over $800,000.00 from 1993 to 1994. So long as Fawcett's cardiac catheterization program performs more than 182 procedures per year, its current break-even point, no negative impact to the hospital's overall financial picture is likely to occur. Assuming that Fawcett's procedures were no more than one-half its 1990 admissions, at current rates, its program would render a positive contribution of more than $650,000.00 to the hospital's financial picture. This figure could not be considered as other than a viable financial contribution. What is more, the implementation of the program at St. Joseph should not exert any upward pressure on the cost of other services rendered by St. Joseph, and should, by competition, moderate future price increases for this procedure at the two competing facilities. As regards Medicaid and indigent care, St. Joseph has been a Medicaid provider since 1965 and has a history of providing service to indigent patients and under-served groups. In fact, the value of care rendered without cost to patients by St. Joseph has climbed from $418,000.00 in 1988 to a projected $1.5 million in 1991. By the same token, its commitment to Medicaid has increased to almost 4% in 1990, in addition to approximately 2% of uncompensated care that same year. The obstetric unit has been shown to operate $500,000.00 a year in the red because of the volume of indigent care provided. Nonetheless, St. Joseph agrees to accept a condition to its CON requiring it to provide 1.5% Medicaid and 2% charity care. In comparison, Fawcett was not certified for Medicaid until late 1989 and its experience since that time has not been substantiated. This tends to underscore the Department's contention that Medicaid and charity patients are under-served within the Charlotte County area. Other criteria outlined within the statute have not been shown by evidence presented, as being significantly affected one way or the other by the implementation of St. Joseph's proposed program. Several of the statutory criteria are, in fact, not applicable to the proposed project in this case. Much the same can be said for the criteria outlined in Rule 10-5.011(1), F.A.C., which tend to overlap to a substantial degree with the statutory review criteria. Fawcett claims that the application filed with the Department by St. Joseph is "very incomplete" in that it omits significant information regarding project costs, capital expenses, source of funds, and a litany of other required information. It claims, therefore, that the Department could not have conducted any meaningful review of the application based upon the information provided. The Department's representative, Ms. Dudek, admits that most, if not all applications omit some information. That is the purpose of the omissions letter which is sent to an applicant after initial review. Not all information called for by the statute is deemed essential however. If an omission is considered immaterial, it will not cause the application to be denied, all other essential material being provided. There are primarily two criteria called for by the statute which are essential to Departmental approval. The first deals with the applicant's access to resources to develop and operate the project, and the second is that the applicant offer quality care. In this case, both were deemed to have been met as was stipulated to by Fawcett. In the instant case, the Department's representative concluded that St. Joseph's application was one of the most thorough and comprehensive, in terms of presentation and backup, to have been filed within the past few years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department approving St. Joseph's application for an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, (CON #6202) for District VIII. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 4th day of April, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 4th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-5815 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Sec 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. 5. & 6. Accepted. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. 22. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. - 34. Accepted. Rejected. - 39. Accepted. 40. - 42. Accepted and incorporated herein, except for the first sentence of Finding 41. Rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 46. Accepted. Rejected. Rejected. - 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Not proven. - 59. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted that the loss of revenue will have an impact but the loss has not been shown to be substantial. - 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. 66. & 67. Accepted. 68. - 76. Accepted incorporated herein in substance. Rejected that the loss of revenue would "cripple" the health trend. It would adversely affect it but not cripple it. - 83. Accepted and incorporated herein. 84. - 90. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 97. Accepted that there are alternatives, but rejected that they are acceptable or adequate. Rejected as too broad a statement. Rejected as to the conclusion of waste. & 101. Accepted. Ultimate conclusion rejected. Need for level of education and experience accepted. Accepted. Underlying fact accepted. Balance is editorialization. - 108. Accepted. Accepted. Not an appropriate Finding of Fact. Accepted. & 113. Accepted and incorporated herein. 114. - 116. Rejected. Accepted. & 119. Rejected. 120. & 121. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. - 126. Accepted. 127. & 128. Accepted. 129. & 130. Rejected. 131. & 132. Accepted. 133. & 134. Rejected. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment of the state of the evidence. Accepted. & 138. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. & 142. Accepted. Rejected. St. Joseph was a Hill-Burton hospital. Accepted. Accepted that St. Joseph receives funds from taxes and other sources, but the conclusions that aid to Medicaid an the indigent "is to be expected" is an unjustified conclusion. 146. Accepted. 147. Accepted but probative value questionable. 148. Accepted that it is less costly. 149. First two sentences accepted. Remainder not proven. 150. Rejected. 151. & 152. Accepted in the short term. 153. Accepted. 154. Not proven. 155. Rejected. 156. - 158. Rejected. 159. & 160. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR: 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 13. Accepted. 14. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Accepted. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and Incorporated herein. - 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36. - 41. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 45. Accepted and incorporated herein. 46. & 47. Accepted. 48. & 49. Accepted and incorporated herein. 50. & 51. Accepted. 52. - 54. Accepted and incorporated herein. 55. - 58. Accepted. 59. & 60. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. & 64. Not Findings of Fact but a comment on the state of the evidence. 65. & 66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. & 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. - 80. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but irrelevant to the issues here. Accepted but considered more a statement of party position and a comment on the evidence. & 84. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and noted in the Conclusions of Law portion of the Recommended Order. - 100. More proper as Conclusions of Law than as Findings of Fact, but accepted where pertinent. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. C. Newton, II, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas Suite 1000, Monroe-Park Tower P.O. Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Patterson, Esquire DHRS 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Philip Blank, P.A. P.O. Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Should the Board of Medicine (the Board) discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida, based upon allegations that he violated Sections 456.072(1)(bb), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in the care and treatment of Patient H.J.?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME: 65565. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes. On or about July 21, 2003, the Respondent performed peritoneal dialysis catheter removal on Patient H.J. at Bay Medical Center (Bay Medical). Peritoneal dialysis is a technique that uses the patient's own body tissues inside of the abdominal cavity to act as a filter. On or about August 25, 2003, Patient H.J. presented with erythema (a redness of the skin resulting from inflammation) and induration (localized hardening of soft tissue of the body) in the area where the peritoneal dialysis catheter had been removed. On or about December 3, 2003, the Respondent performed exploratory surgery of Patient H.J.'s wound. Additional Facts Patient H.J. suffers from end-stage kidney failure, diabetes and heart disease. Dr. Ahmad Oussama Refai treated Patient H.J. for his kidney failure. Dr. Refai is a board- certified Nephrologist. Dr. Refai referred Patient H.J. for placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter (catheter) to address the end-stage kidney failure. The catheter, as Dr. Refai describes it, was intended to remove the poisonous material in the blood of Patient H.J. By using the catheter clean fluid is introduced into the abdomen where it remains for a period of about four hours. The fluid introduced contains electrolytes put in the patient's blood stream. After the residence time for the fluid expires, the fluid is withdrawn through the catheter removing the harmful material. The patient, once instructed, is capable of performing the procedures described. The other option in performing this method of dialysis is to use a device that is employed at nighttime called a cycler, used while the patient is asleep and without the need for the patient to conduct the process. The patient's use of the catheter for dialysis is referred to as "home dialysis." Before Dr. Refai referred the patient to Respondent to place the catheter, the patient had been treated for his end- stage renal disease through a forearm AV graph to provide hemodialysis. That technique allows access to the patient's blood through a shunt, with the blood being run through a machine and cleansed and returned back to the patient. This procedure is done several times a week at out-patient centers, whereas the peritoneal dialysis is done daily by the patient or at night. On June 30, 2000, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and determined that the patient was a good candidate for the surgery necessary to place the catheter to perform peritoneal dialysis. On July 19, 2000, Respondent placed the catheter and peritoneal dialysis treatment was commenced. Following the placement the catheter was used by the patient as overseen by the Dr. Refai. As Dr. Refai describes it, the catheter is a silestic tube that has two cuffs. The cuff at the lower level sits on the fascia where it is secured and the other cuff is just under the skin or in the subcutaneous tissue. Dr. Refai describes the cuffs as fuzzy. The cuffs are expected to induce an inflammatory process promoting scarring so that the body forms tissue to hold the catheter in place. Dr. Refai calls this a bond. Dr. Refai explains that the other parts of the catheter are "slippery." It is the fuzzy part that holds the catheter in place. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 is an unused catheter similar in design to that placed in Patient H.J. On July 7, 2003, Respondent, Dr. Refai, and a Dr. Dean discussed Patient H.J. and the plan to remove the catheter that was no longer adequately performing the dialysis. On July 21, 2003, Respondent did surgery to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. On July 17, 2003, before Respondent did the surgery to remove the catheter, an explanation was made to Patient H.J. of the risks associated with the surgery as to bleeding, infection, MI stroke, death, and allergic reaction following removal of the catheter. Following the surgery Dr. Refai as the treating physician was aware that the wound associated with the surgery was not healing well and Dr. Refai sent Patient H.J. back to Respondent. Dr. Refai is familiar with the course of antibiotics prescribed for Patient H.J. to respond to the condition and the surgical exploration done by Respondent where a piece of cuff, as Dr. Refai describes it, was removed and the wound healed. December 3, 2003, was the date of the exploratory surgery. At that time, Patient H.J. was on hemo-dialysis and was being seen by Dr. Refai once a week. In Dr. Refai's opinion Patient H.J. was doing remarkably well, making allowances for his underlying condition (illnesses). At present Dr. Refai is aware that the patient is on the list to receive a kidney transplant. On August 1, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. In his notes Respondent stated: His wounds look good. There is no evidence of infection. No fever or chills. He looks well. He is not taking any pain medicine. I am going to see him back in a month for a final visit. On August 25, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again. The Respondent's notes stated: His p.d. catheter removal site which was removed 4 weeks ago has some erythema and induration around it. I ultrasounded it here in the office and it looked like there was a little fluid. I anesthetized the area and opened it. There was no gross pus. I am going ahead and treat [sic] him with some Keflex and have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday as I am going to be out of town. This may come to a head and become an abscess. It may just be some cellulitis. I am not real sure why he would have cellulites as it certainly did not look like a hernia. I am going to have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday and make sure it is improving. On August 29, 2003, a note was made by Dr. Beaver concerning his visit with Patient H.J. In that note Dr. Beaver said: Patient of Dr. Kinsey. He was seen back for re-check. Apparently he was having some questionable cellulites around his p.d. cath today. He states that he is feeling much better. On examination, I see no redness at all and per the office assistance it has much improved. There is really not tender [sic]. It looks to me like it is improving. We will plan for him to see Dr. Kinsey back next week. On September 12, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and in the office note stated: The area in his left lower quadrant is completely healed. He is doing well. I am going to see him back in one month for a final visit. On September 16, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note stated: He had some drainage from his previous p.d. catheter site. It does not appear to be infected. I am going to follow this area and see him in the office in a month. On September 30, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note it states: He still has some drainage from the p.d. catheter exit site [sic] it was done about eight weeks ago. I told him that I would like to leave that along [sic] for at least three months and follow that. If it does not improve after three to four months then we may need to explore the wound but it may be a piece of suture that it [sic] trying to spit. We will see him back in the office in about 6 to 8 weeks. On November 11, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and noted: He is still draining from his p.d. catheter exit site. This has been 5 months. It is time to explore the wound. We will proceed to the operating room for exploration in the sinus tract. I suspect that there will be a piece of the catheter in the bottom of the wound. On December 1, 2003 Respondent saw Patient H.J. for the pre-operative visit. At that time he noted: He is here for a pre-op for a wound exploration for his p.d. catheter removal site. He still has some granulation tissue there. I am going to plan to probe the area and evaluate where the sinus goes. On December 3, 2003, the surgery was conducted on Patient H.J. and Respondent noted: He underwent a left lower quadrant wound exploration. The p.d. catheter cuff was within the subcutaneous tissue and that is why his wound [sic] not close. This was removed and then the would [sic] was closed. He tolerated the procedure well. The various surgeries that have been discussed which were performed by Respondent took place at Bay Medical in Panama City, Florida. In the operative procedure report at the hospital related to the December 3, 2003 exploratory operation Respondent described a pre-operative diagnosis as: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. The post-operative diagnosis stated: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. Foreign body (peritoneal dialysis catheter cuff), left lower quadrant abdominal wound. The procedure performed was described as: Wound exploration and foreign body removal. The intra-operative findings related to the operation were: He was found to have a cuff of the catheter within the tissue. He had a small piece of p.d. catheter attached to it. The cuff had obviously broken. The catheter was broken with a cuff remaining in the subcu tissue. There was no intra-abdominal portion. In comparison, on July 21, 2003, in the operative/procedure report at Bay Medical through the description of the procedure to remove the catheter Respondent stated: . . . The previous incision in the left hypogastric area was anesthetized with local anesthetic and sharply incised. This was carried into the subcutaneous tissue and p.d.-catheter dissected and divided. The catheter was then pulled from the subcutaneous tissue at the exit site. The catheter was then delivered into the wound and abdominal wall cuff sharply incised and the catheter removed. The fascial edges were then reapproximated with 2 figure-of-eight0- vicryl sutures. On July 21, 2003, when Respondent removed the catheter from Patient H.J. no pathology was ordered. On December 3, 2003, following the exploratory surgery and retrieval of the catheter pathology was ordered. Daniel G. Dena was the pathologist at Bay Medical who addressed the specimen which was described by the pathologist as: "Tissue-p.d. catheter cuff" The anatomic diagnosis referred stated: "p.d. catheter cuff: plastic catheter, with attached fibro-fatty tissue at one end, showing acute and chronic inflammation." The macroscopic examination in the pathology report stated: "The specimen is labeled 'pd catheter cuff'. Received is a portion of plastic tubing measuring approximately 5 cm in length and up to 0.5 cm in diameter, with a cuff of soft tissue at one end measuring 2.5 cm in length and 1.2 cm in diameter." On July 26, 2004, in responding to the investigation that led to this prosecution Respondent stated in writing in relation to Patient H.J.: The original peritoneal dialysis catheter removal had gone uneventfully and I felt that both cuffs of the catheter had been removed in their entirety. But this was found not to be the case. I have placed a number of these catheters and removed a number as well and have not had this type of problem before. Visual inspection of the catheter on removal is routinely undertaken to ensure that the cuffs are removed and I felt that this had been completely removed but I was obviously mistaken. I am not sure if this was a defect in the catheter. Evaluation of the catheter and assurance of complete cuff removal would have probably prevented this process. I am certainly more cognizant of this being a problem in subsequent catheters that I have removed. At the original time of catheter removal the operative site appeared appropriate. At hearing Respondent offered additional explanation concerning the July 21, 2003 operation to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. and the exploratory surgery on December 3, 2003. As Respondent explained, in the July 21, 2003 surgery Respondent made a 3-to-4 cm incision about the belly button towards the middle of the abdomen through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, the fascial layer and muscle and peritoneal layer. The peritoneal layer is a semi-permeable membrane that waste products removed in the dialysis will cross. The catheter is placed into the abdomen. The catheter is 12 to 14 inches in length with a curlicue tail and holes in the end of the catheter that allows the fluids to be introduced and withdrawn from the abdomen. As Respondent explained the catheter has two cuffs, the smaller of which is designed for placement in the rectus muscle located along the inset part of the abdomen. The smaller cuff sits inside that muscle. Tissue attaches to that cuff to keep fluid from leaking out, to keep the catheter in place and to prevent bacteria from going down the outside of the catheter. There is a segment of the catheter between that cuff and a larger cuff which sits underneath the skin in the subcutaneous tissue. The tissue in that area attaches to the cuff and serves to hold the catheter in place. When removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, Respondent used an incision of about 3 cm and encountered the mid-portion of the catheter located between the two cuffs which was dissected down through the fascia and taken out with the portion in the abdomen being removed first. Before making the incision to remove the catheter, Respondent cut the portion of the catheter outside the body of Patient H.J. off, including the metal and plastic valves and other paraphernalia hanging out of the patient. The purpose of removing the catheter outside the patient's body was in the interest of protecting the surgical field from contamination to avoid wound infection. The part removed inside the patient initially was the intra-abdominal portion. The intra-abdominal portion of the catheter, including the cuff in that area was sharply removed. The cuff was 2 or 3 times the size that it would have been when first placed and the part around the cuff was cut to allow the catheter to be extracted. The area of the fascia was closed. Next Respondent addressed the subcutaneous portion of the catheter by following it out and sharply cutting the tissue around the catheter and the subcutaneous cuff with scissors to remove that portion which also had an ingrowth of scar and fibroblastic tissue. Once the portions of the catheter with the cuffs, had been removed Respondent looked to determine if he had both cuffs which appeared at that time as a wad of scar and tissue. Respondent then closed the wound. Respondent believed that he had removed the whole catheter, to include the cuffs. In fact the subcutaneous cuff was not entirely removed and another portion of the catheter remained in the patient following the July 21, 2003 surgery. Respondent's estimate of what had been left in the patient and removed on December 3, 2003, was about 2 cm of the subcutaneous cuff and then a portion of the balance of the catheter. In commenting on the difference between the pathology report and his visual assessment on December 3, 2003, Respondent remarked about "all the stuff" grown onto the cuff and catheter. He also said it had a lot of specimen, taken to mean the "stuff" attached to the cuff and catheter. Although in the operative notes from December 3, 2003, Respondent says the catheter broke, at hearing he stated that he did not know whether the catheter had been cut or broke during the July 21, 2003 procedure to remove the catheter. No independent tests were conducted to determine whether the catheter broke during the July 21, 2003 surgery or was cut by Respondent. Respondent does not precisely remember the appearance of the catheter, to include the cuffs, when examining it on July 21, 2003. But he believed that he had successfully removed the entire catheter. In his testimony Respondent describes the office visits subsequent to the July 21, 2003 surgery. When he saw Patient H.J. he observed cellulitis around the area of the incision which was treated with oral antibiotics and resolved. Respondent used ultrasound to determine whether fluid had collected in the area where he observed the cellulitis. No fluid collection was seen. Drainage was noticed around the exit site where the catheter came out of the skin, which ordinarily takes a month to six weeks to heal. Concerning the drainage around this exit site, Respondent expected the drainage to resolve within around five weeks unless there were a piece of suture or other kind of event keeping the site opened and draining. The wound site where the incision was made healed without incident. The exit site continued to drain. After a time Respondent concluded that the reason for the drainage was either an epithelilized sinus tract, a piece of suture, a piece of catheter, a piece of cuff, or a piece of dressing for the wound. Respondent waited a time before doing the exploratory surgery in view of the use of an absorbable suture in the July 21, 2003 surgery which would have dissolved over time, precluding the need to do the exploration. Respondent, given the problem with the drainage from Patient H.J. following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter, does not believe that the failure to remove this fragment would have killed the patient or have caused a lot of problems, but it was bothersome enough that it was worth the effort to try and find it and get the patient healed. Respondent in dictating his post-operative note on December 3, 2003, thinks that the catheter had broken and continues to hold to that belief, although he recognizes that it may have been cut in the prior surgery. Concerning his practice at Bay Medical, Respondent did not routinely have an X-ray done for patients undergoing surgery without a more specific reason for ordering it. Nor did he order a pathology examination following surgery absent the need for specific information. Patient H.J. in his testimony described the level of pain following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter as "a little pain." Expert Opinion Dr. Stanley P. Kococki is a general surgeon licensed in Florida. He is board-certified in general surgery. He has had experience placing and removing peritoneal dialysis catheters. He was qualified to offer expert opinion testimony concerning Respondent's treatment of Patient H.J., in particular, the surgery performed July 21, 2003. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that the Respondent fell below the standard of care in treating Patient H.J., in that Respondent failed to recognize that he had left a portion of the catheter in the patient, which Dr. Kococki describes as a retained foreign body and that this caused the patient to undergo a second unnecessary procedure, meaning that the second procedure would not have been necessary if the catheter had been removed completely in the first surgery. The failure to remove could possibly have caused serious problems for the patient, to include septicemia and death, according to Dr. Kococki. Dr. Kococki refers to the Respondent's obligation in removing the catheter, to make certain that the whole catheter was removed and that the wound properly healed beyond that point so that the patient would not experience problems. While recognizing that there are different techniques for removing the catheter from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki took issue with the method employed by the Respondent. Dr. Kococki believes that there are other methods for avoiding the problem with infection than to cut the catheter outside the body. There was no description of the use of a hemostat or clamps to hold the retained part of the catheter once the outside segment had been cut, so that the remaining portion of the catheter would not be lost under the skin. In addition, by cutting the catheter in two places there was a chance of leaving a piece of the catheter in the patient. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that when you cut the catheter in several places you have to remember where the pieces of the catheter are left in the patient. Given other circumstances during the surgery that occupy the surgeon's mind, it can lead to leaving a piece of catheter behind. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that leaving the catheter behind was not in the best interest of the patient because it led to subsequent surgery and had the sinus tract closed over the foreign body would have caused a localized infection and abscess formation around that area and possibly allowed for the bacteria from the abscess to enter the patient's bloodstream causing sepsis, and abscess formation in other organs, possibly the abdominal cavity, with a possible rupture intra-abdominally causing the patient to have generalized peritonitis. That can be life threatening and ultimately lethal. It is more of a problem with the person that has end-stage renal failure, in that the patient has a weakened immune system and lessened prospects to fight off infection. Dr. Kococki relied upon the pathology report made after the December 3, 2003 surgery to accurately describe the size of the segment that was left in the patient. In order to ascertain what actually happened with the catheter Dr. Kococki believes that the company or an independent examining body would have to determine if the catheter was defective. Even in the instance where the catheter may have broken in the initial surgery to remove it on July 21, 2003, the onus is still on the surgeon removing the catheter to examine it to make certain it was removed intact. Dr. Kococki characterizes the catheter as commonly present and utilized in surgical procedures to place and remove peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Kococki describes the catheter as a medical device, unlike a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle. Dr. Kococki recognizes that the purpose of the catheter is to perform dialysis but the retained portion left after the initial surgery to remove the catheter does not have a medical purpose, in his judgment. Dr. Kococki describes the cuff in the field related to the abdominal wall as providing a seal to avoid bacteria. The cuff as he understands it has an antibiotic coating that will help fight off infection. The cuff reacts with the patient's body tissue to act as a sealant. To have avoided the problem of failing to account for a portion of the catheter during the initial surgery to remove it from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki believes that the easiest thing to have done was while the patient was in the operating room send the catheter to a pathologist and have it measured for comparison against the known size of the catheter when first placed. A second safe-guard would be to use a portable X-ray of the abdominal cavity to make sure that there was no radiopaque material in the abdomen or subcutaneous tissue. The catheter has radiopaque material allowing this identification in Dr. Kococki's understanding. Dr. Kococki was not familiar with the procedures at Bay Medical where the catheter removal from Patient H.J. was performed. The bylaws of the institution do not require that the catheter be sent to pathology following removal. Dr. Thomas A. Gadacz testified in the interest of Respondent. He is licensed in several states. He is not licensed in Florida. He is an expert in the field of general surgery. He has placed and removed peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Gadacz describes the catheter as a medical device. It has nothing in common with a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle, in his opinion. As a surgeon Dr. Gadacz refers to sponges, forceps, clamps and surgical needles as items whose sole purpose is to assist during an operation, not intended to be left in the body. They are to facilitate an operation to provide exposure, to conduct the operation but they are not a therapeutic modality. By contrast the peritoneal dialysis catheter is used primarily for therapy by remaining in the patient for specified periods of time to treat the patient. Other aids in performing an operation are cotton balls called kitners, metal retractors and cannulas. Dr. Gadacz explains that the purpose of the cuffs related to the catheter is to react to the body so that tissue grows around them. The other part of the catheter made of Teflon is designed to be non-reactive. Dr. Gadacz is aware that catheters of the type under discussion have fractured or broken. Dr. Gadacz explained that the fracture of a cuff is not common. In his experience, in the instance where a segment broke in a catheter, Dr. Gadacz removed it. On the other hand the failure to remove the piece is not necessarily below the standard of care as Dr. Gadacz explains, "because some times this happens, and its, you don't know that that has happened." The possibility of knowing that the segment broke off is difficult. As Dr. Gadacz describes, it was impossible given the tract involved with the surgery here. The gross inspection of the catheter once removed from the patient is a process in which it is difficult to make certain that both cuffs are there because of the encrusting fibrous tissue found after removing the cuffs, causing the cuffs to no longer have the same appearance as when first placed. The visual inspection made of the catheter after removal would not necessarily reveal whether it was removed in its entirety, according to Dr. Gadacz. Dr. Gadacz is unfamiliar with surgeons who would use an X-ray after removal of the catheter to confirm that the entire catheter had been removed. Instead he defers to Respondent's operative note on December 3, 2003, where the Respondent says that the catheter had obviously broken to explain the failure to retrieve the catheter. Dr. Gadacz does not believe sending the catheter to pathology after it was removed on July 21, 2003, would necessarily have been useful because it would take familiarity on the part of the pathologist with that form of catheter to recognize that a part was missing. Dr. Gadacz recognizes that the fragment from the catheter left in Patient H.J. at the end of the initial surgery to remove the catheter is medically considered a foreign body because it was not part of the human body. Dr. Gadacz found nothing in the care provided by Respondent by to Patient H.J. after the July 21, 2003 surgery that was questionable. Dr. Gadacz did not find the technique Respondent used in removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, from the Patient H.J. to be below the standard of care. Generally Dr. Gadacz did not express the opinion that Respondent practiced below the standard of care. Dr. Gadacz explained that had the segment continued to be present in the patient there would have been a major risk of continuing infection and ultimately the patient could have developed a serious abscess in the subcutaneous tissue that could become life-threatening or nothing may have happened, and the segment may have been walled off by the patient's body. In determining the comparability of what is described in Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003), as "other paraphernalia," to those items listed within that section, "such as a sponge, clamp, forceps, surgical needle," that are "used in surgical examination, or other diagnostic procedures," reliance is made upon testimony from Dr. Gadacz. As a surgeon, the opinion by Dr. Kococki is rejected for reasons that will be explained in the conclusions of law. When considering whether Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, as envisioned by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), with the specificity called for in that provision, Dr. Kococki is more compelling in his opinion that the fragment left in Patient H.J. should have been removed in the earlier operation whether it broke or was cut by Respondent. The notion that there are times when some portion of the catheter may have been left in the patient, as was the case here, with no consequences to the practitioner, as expressed by Dr. Gadacz is not persuasive. Disciplinary History The Respondent has no prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the guidance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 8.001, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent did not violate Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003); that Respondent did violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003); placing Respondent on probation for two years; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; requiring Respondent to perform 50 hours of community service; requiring the completion of 5 hours of continuing medical education on "risk management" and requiring him to present a one-hour lecture to a group of peers discussing retention of foreign bodies in surgeries and techniques to avoid the retention. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Miller Ephraim D. Livingston Assistants General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Albert Peacock, Esquire 8554 Congressional Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether the application for the certificate of need for a cardiac catheterization laboratory filed by Humana Hospital Bennett should be approved. The proceeding is governed by Section 381.705(1), Florida Statutes (1987), and Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Humana Bennett and the Department maintain that Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes, is inapplicable to this matter, but the other parties believe that statute applies. Not all subsections of these statutes or rules are in dispute, however. According to the prehearing stipulation, the following are either not in dispute or inapplicable: 1. Section 381.705(1) (c) , (e) , (f) , (g) (h) [except for the applicant's ability to recruit health manpower resources], (i),(j),(k),(m) 2. As to Section 381.705(2), subsection (e) is not in dispute. 3. As to Rule 10-5.011(1) (e), the following subparagraphs are not in dispute: 7.a., 7.b., 7.c., 7.d., 8.a., 8.b., 9.a., 9.c., 9.d., 9.e. (II) and (III), 13., 14., and 15.b. The parties dispute whether the application of Humana Bennett meets the following statutory and rule criteria for a certificate of need: 1. Section 381.705(1) (a), (b) , (d) , [as to health manpower] (1), and (n). As to Section 381.705(2), the following: (a) , (b) , (c) , and (d). 3. As to Rule 10-5.011(1) (e) , the following: 8.c., 9.b., 9.e.(I), 10., 11., 12., 15.a., and 15.c. FINDINGS OF FACT Description of the parties and their characteristics Humana Hospital Bennett is a 204-bed, acute care medical surgical hospital located in west central Broward County. It is the westernmost facility in Broward County. It is owned by Humana, Inc., and operated or profit. Western Broward is growing faster than the mature communities on the Atlantic Coast. Humana Bennett is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, and provides an array of services for the diagnosis and treatment of coronary disease including electrocardiology, echocardiology, nuclear medicine heart studies, stress testing, and other non-invasive procedures. It does not offer open heart surgery. Humana Bennett also has a 14-bed intensive care/coronary unit, a 22-bed intermediate care unit, and a progressive cardiac rehabilitation program. The Humana medical staff is composed of 460 physicians, 28 of whom specialize in the treatment of cardiovascular disease; 24 of these 28 are board- certified in cardiology. An additional 12 physicians are board-certified in cardiovascular and thoracic surgery. About 63% of all discharges at Humana are cardiac- related. This percentage has increased over time. In fiscal year 1985 52.3% of discharges were cardiac-related. Humana Bennett has contracts with health maintenance organizations for hospital services. These include the Humana Care Plus and International Medical Center health maintenance organizations which are owned and operated by Humana, Inc. About 65,000 Broward County residents are subscribers to these plans. The Humana Bennett catheterization laboratory would involve 2,500 square feet of new construction and 750 square feet of renovation. The hospital projects that the laboratory will be operational by September 1989. The laboratory would be capable of providing a full range of diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures, which would include a cardiac catheterization laboratory, a control area, a storage area, a darkroom, and other related preparation, recovery and support areas. The total project cost would be approximately $1,302,600. There are both diagnostic and therapeutic uses for catheterization; the therapeutic uses include angioplasty. By Department rule, only a hospital with an open heart surgery program may perform angioplasty. Humana Bennett's laboratory could perform only diagnostic catheterizations. The South Broward Hospital District was created by a special act of the 1947 Florida Legislature, Chapter 24415, Laws of Florida, as an independent taxing authority. It does not operate to produce a profit. It was created to provide health care services to the residents of south Broward County by constructing and operating health care facilities serving all types of health care needs within its boundaries. It provides services without regard to the ability of district residents to pay for health care. The service areas of South Broward's hospital (Memorial Hospital) and Humana Bennett overlap, and numerous physicians are on the staff of both facilities. If the Humana Bennett application is approved, the number of cardiac catheterizations performed at Memorial Hospital will be reduced. The catheterization laboratory at Memorial Hospital generates a substantial amount of income for South Broward Hospital District. The initiation of catheterization services at Humana Bennett would reduce revenues at Memorial Hospital without any offsetting reduction in costs at Memorial. The substantial interests of the South Broward Hospital District are affected by the application filed by Humana Bennett. Over the years, Memorial Hospital has been expanded from a 100-bed facility to a 737-bed full service hospital. It is the only hospital in south Broward County which provides cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization, physical rehabilitation with a distinct comprehensive unit, psychiatric services, pediatric surgical services, pediatric intensive care, full service neonatology, new born intensive care and progressive care, high-risk obstetric maternity care, and residential substance abuse programs. Some of the services Memorial Hospital provides are operated at a loss. Uncompensated care amounted to 22.1% of South Broward Hospital District's gross revenue in fiscal year 1987. The District projects that $44.9 million will be spent in the current fiscal year for uncompensated care. Operating revenues and the District's power to levy property taxes pay for the services provided to indigents. Memorial Hospital is the primary provider of services to the indigent and medically needy in south Broward County. Florida Medical Center is a 459-bed acute care hospital. It provides a broad range of cardiology services, including cardiac catheterization. It currently operates three separate cardiac catheterization laboratories. The first laboratory opened in 1974, the second two were equipped in 1983. The second laboratory was fully staffed at that time but the third was only fully staffed in December 1987. FMC has the present ability to perform three cardiac catheterization procedures simultaneously in its laboratories and the staff to perform procedures in that manner. Its third laboratory was opened primarily to accommodate the desire of physicians to perform catheterizations in the morning and is also used for other purposes. Florida Medical Center is located within five to six miles of Humana Bennett and under normal driving conditions the drive between the facilities takes 15 to 20 minutes. Florida Medical Center and Humana Bennett compete for patients within the same geographic area. Approximately 73% of the cardiac catheterizations performed at Florida Medical Center during 1987 were performed by physicians who are also on the staff of Humana Bennett. If the new cardiac catheterization service for Humana Bennett is approved, Florida Medical Center will lose patients and will therefore perform fewer catheterization procedures. Florida Medical Center would lose revenue without any offsetting reduction in its costs. The interests of Florida Medical Center are substantially affected by the CON application filed by Humana Bennett. Plantation General Hospital is a 264-bed general acute care hospital located in Plantation, Florida, which is in central Broward County. It is owned by and operated for profit by HealthTrust, Inc. It offers a broad range of cardiology services including cardiac catheterization. Its cardiac catheterization laboratory opened in April 1985. Plantation General is located approximately three and a half miles from Humana Bennett. Plantation General and Humana Bennett compete for substantially identical service areas and have overlapping medical staffs. Of the 37 cardiologists on the staff of Planation, 24 are also the on staff of Humana Bennett. Ten of 14 physicians performing cardiac catheterization procedures at Planation are on the staff of Humana Bennett. Approval of a cardiac catheterization service at Humana Bennett would result in fewer catheterizations being performed at Plantation. Plantation would suffer a loss of revenue without any offsetting reduction in costs. The interests of Plantation General Hospital are substantially affected by the CON application filed by Humana Bennett. FACTUAL FINDINGS CONCERNING THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA AGAINST WHICH THE APPLICATION MUST BE EVALUATED The criteria to be used in evaluating the application are found in statutes, and in the rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which implement those statutes. The application will first be analyzed for consistency with Section 381.705(1), Florida Statutes, and, to the extent the rules make those criteria more specific, those considerations will be discussed in a later portion of this order. Consistency with Statutory Criteria Consistency with the state health plan and the District X local plan. Section 381.705(1) (a), Florida Statutes. a. The district health plan The District X Health Plan for 1985 is the most recent complete plan, and was the plan in effect when the Humana Bennett application was filed. it contains three recommendations relevant to approval of cardiac catheterization services. These are: Applicants for certificate of need approval should document either their intention and/or experience in meeting or exceeding the standards promulgated for the provision of cardiac catheterization and/or cardiac surgery by the appropriate national accreditation organization(s). Applicants proposing to initiate or expand cardiac catheterization or cardiac surgery must make their services available to all segments of the population regardless of the ability to pay. The provision of new cardiac catheterization or cardiac surgery programs should not be approved unless they meet or exceed the standards and criteria set forth by HRS. Humana Bennett is currently accredited by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals, and proposes to seek accreditation of its cardiac catheterization laboratory if approved. In 1985, Humana Bennett provided 1.2% of the total uncompensated care provided by Broward County hospitals. Humana Bennett's application, as revised in June 1987 in response to an omissions letter from the Department, proposed to provide 1% of patient days to Medicaid patients, 45% of patient days to Medicare patients, 43% of patient days to insurance patients, and 11% of patients days to private pay patients (Humana's exhibit 3, page 87).1/ Humana Bennett also has a Medicaid contract. Humana has the following emergency care policy for its hospitals Facilities will provide emergency care without regard to the patient's ability to pay. An indigent patient will be treated just as any other patient, and will receive whatever care is required to stabilize his/her condition. Non-emergency patients must make payment or arrangement for payment, before health services are delivered to them. (Humana exhibit 3, page 54.) For purposes of the Humana Bennett emergency care policy, indigent patients include "patients who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, who do not have private or employer- provided health insurance, and who are unable to pay for their health care." Emergency patients are defined as patients "in a life or health threatening situation who require immediate treatment or hospitalization." After an attending physician determines that an indigent patient is stabilized, the patient is transferred to a hospital which receives government funds for indigent care; the Humana Bennett manager must approve this action before it is taken. All actions, including the attending physician's approval, are documented and maintained in the patient's business office folder. These policies indicate no substantial commitment to indigent care. Cardiac catheterization is not ordinarily an emergency procedure, but a diagnostic one. The existing emergency care policy, therefore, indicates that practically no catheterization will be done for indigents. This is inconsistent with the local health plan's requirement to make catheterization services available to all segments of the population. The application update submitted by Humana (exhibit 6, pro forma income statement) shows initial total patient revenues of $543,750, with a deduction of $27,188 for "indigent care/bad debt." This allowance is an indication of the amount the hospital expects to be unable to collect from patients it admitted with the expectation of payment. It is not the result of any community outreach to provide catheterization services to indigent residents of Broward County. The State Health Plan The 1985-87 State Health Plan discusses cardiac catheterization at pages 94 through 96. In the portion entitled "Criteria and Standards," the State Health Plan quotes from the Inter-Society Commission on Heart Disease Resources concerning the need for physical proximity and relationships between diagnostic catheterization facilities and open heart surgery programs. According to the Inter-Society Commission: ... there can be little justification for the development of these highly specialized facilities (cath labs) unless expertise in cardiology, cardiovascular radiology, and cardiovascular surgery are immediately available. Optimally therefore, catheterization laboratories should be located only in institutions with well organized and closely related programs of cardiovascular surgery. ... such an arrangement not only facilitates close inter-disciplinary cooperation and minimizes unnecessary, repetitive, inadequate, or unsafe diagnostic studies, but it also allows prompt intervention should life threatening complications develop during catheterization studies....it should be emphasized... that separation of the diagnostic laboratory from the surgical facility is less than optimal and may present serious problems. The National Health Planning Guidelines supports this emphasis through a recommendation that no new cardiac catheterization unit be opened in any facility not providing open heart surgery. (Humana exhibit 8) (emphasis supplied) Because there is no open heart surgery program at Humana Bennett, the proposal is inconsistent with the State Health Plan's clear preference for locating catheterization laboratories at facilities where open heart surgery is available. As discussed in section II B.3. of this order infra, the absence of a written referral agreement in the Humana Bennett application, identifying a facility with open heart surgery capability to which patients needing immediate open heart surgery will be transferred, is a serious deficiency in the application. 2. Availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of existing services. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes There is no contention that existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in District X failed to provide quality care, and there is no geographic problem with the availability of catheterization services. Nothing in the Humana Bennett application would expand the availability of these services to segments of the population that are not currently being served for economic reasons. The issue of the efficiency and extent of utilization of existing services raises the question whether there is additional capacity in existing catheterization laboratories which ought to be utilized in preference to incurring the capital expenditure involved in constructing and equipping a catheterization laboratory at Humana Bennett. This consideration is related to the need calculation made under the Department rule discussed in a later portion of this order. When the Humana Bennett application was filed there were 10 existing laboratories in District X: one at Broward General, two at FMC, two at Holy Cross Hospital, two at North Ridge Medical Center, one at Plantation General, one at North Broward Medical Center, and one at Memorial Hospital. Shortly before the final hearing, Holy Cross Hospital reported that the physician who operates the catheterization laboratories there under contract with the hospital, Dr. Zachariah, had added a third laboratory. That physician opened the third laboratory for his own convenience, not because the volume of his practice required it. Florida Medical Center also added an additional laboratory for the convenience of cardiologists who practice there, which it also uses for other procedures. Expansion by existing providers can take place without certificate of need approval when the capital expenditure needed for expansion is less than one million dollars. These existing providers were able to add laboratories without the necessity of HRS approval. An additional laboratory also has been added to District X by the approval of the lab for imperial Point Medical Center, which had applied in the same batching cycle as Humana Bennett. No party objected to the issuance of that certificate of need, and therefore it should be considered in determining the statutory issue of the extent of the utilization and adequacy of like and existing health care services, because its services will be available at the planning horizon year, 1989 Humana Bennett could have prevented the consideration of that capacity by objecting to the grant of the certificate of need to Imperial Point and requiring a comparative hearing on the competing applications of Humana Bennett and Imperial Point but it decided not to do so. Some of the existing providers have argued that existing unused capacity at their facilities should be taken into consideration in determining whether there is a need for the Humana Bennett laboratory. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e)12., Florida Administrative Code, provides in part that: The need for cardiac catheterization capacity in a service area shall be determined by computing the projected number of cardiac catheterization procedures in the service area. The capacity issue is therefore controlled by the provisions of the rule and will be discussed under the rule calculation. That competitors maintain they can provide more catheterizations than the rule projects for each provider is not legally relevant under this subsection of the statute. 3. The availability and adequacy of other health care services which may serve as alternatives to the services to be provided by the applicant. Section 381.705(1) (d), Florida Statutes. There is no persuasive evidence that there are other diagnostic procedures which serve as an alternative to cardiac catheterization which should be utilized in preference to catheterization. 4. Availability of resources including health manpower. Section 381.705(1) (h), Florida Statutes Nurses and technicians who work on cardiac catheterization teams have specialized skills and these skilled employees are difficult to recruit and retain. The proof demonstrates, however1 that Humana Bennett can staff the positions necessary for its catheterization laboratory by national recruitment and by cross-training of in-house nursing and radiology personnel. A catheterization lab requires cardiac care R.N.s, radiology technicians, and a specialized procedure/cardiovascular technician. Critical care nurses at Humana Bennett have already expressed an interest in becoming cardiac catheterization R.N.s and critical care nurses can easily be trained as cardiac catheterization nurses. Similarly, cross-training of existing radiology employees can fill the radiology technician positions. Humana Bennett has already received three resumes from cardiovascular technicians. 5. Probable impact of the proposed project on the cost of providing health services proposed by the applicant upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed. Section 381.705(1) (1), Florida statutes Humana Bennett projects gross revenue charges during the first year of operation of the catheterization laboratory of $1,450 and a net revenue per procedure in the first year of $913. The net revenue figure is lower because it reduces gross revenue by contractual allowances due to HMO/PPO discounts, and the difference between the hospital's customary charge and the amount reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid for catheterization procedures. The gross charge for the second year of operation is $1,500 with a net revenue per procedure of $945. These projected charges are about the same as those charged by existing providers; FMC charges currently about $1,400-$1,500 with a net revenue of about $1,200-$1,300 for inpatient catheterizations. During the first four months of calendar year 1987, South Broward Hospital District (Memorial Hospital) charged about $1,431 for catheterizations. Plantation General charged approximately $2,300. Thus, there will be no increase in the charge for such procedures due to additional competition. There was no evidence from any existing provider that entry of Humana Bennett into the catheterization market would cause it to lose revenue to the point where any existing provider would withdraw from the catheterization market and thereby contract the supply of catheterization services. Providers do not have the option of simply raising charges to compensate for diminished market share because Medicare, Medicaid, and HMO/PPO charges are fixed, and open market competition will drive private pay patients to lower cost providers. Obviously, the entry of an additional provider into the market will reduce the current market share which existing providers enjoy. The certificate of need statute is not meant to protect competitors' incomes. While existing providers will be affected, the increased competition would be a positive impact, with the exception of the impact on the public health care provider, South Broward Hospital District. If the Humana Bennett catheterization laboratory is approved, South Broward Hospital District would lose approximately 50% of the catheterization procedures it now provides to persons who live in Humana Bennett's service area, and also would lose 10% of the referrals for open heart surgery or therapeutic catheterizations (angioplasty) for patients it would have served, but for the laboratory at Humana Bennett. The South Broward Hospital District would lose about $324,000 of net revenue. In 1987, South Broward Hospital District provided $41,392,000 in uncompensated care. Approximately 11 million dollars was provided by tax revenues and 30 million dollars was provided from profitable operations. This $324,000 probable loss in net revenue would add to the public hospital district's burden, but this revenue loss is not grave enough to restrict the entry of another competitor into the catheterization market in and of itself. 6. The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Section 381.705(1) (n), Florida Statutes Humana Bennett maintains a Medicaid contract and does admit and treat Medicaid patients who present themselves. In fiscal year 1987, 5.31% of Humana's gross revenues were provided for uncompensated care, which equates to 3.15 million dollars. There is, however, no proof that this figure is anything other than money which the hospital had expected admitted patients to pay, but which, for whatever reasons, went unpaid. Accordingly, the proof is not persuasive that any portion of that 3.15 million dollar amount was generated by a conscious commitment on the part of Humana Bennett to provide hospital services to indigents on a charity basis. While prudent accounting requires a for-profit hospital to have a reserve for bad debts, it is not entitled to have its application viewed more favorably by passing off its bad debt reserve as if it were charity care. This factor, therefore, does not enhance the Humana Bennett application; neither does it detract from it. Consistency with rule criteria Service accessibility to undeserved population groups. Rule 10-5.011(1) (e)8.c. Florida Administrative Code This rule criteria requires little additional analysis to that already expressed above in Section II. A.1 and 6 of this order under Section 381.705(1)(b) and (n), Florida Statutes. While the applicant does propose to serve all persons needing catheterizations, including Medicare and Medicaid patients, the Medicaid projected utilization is only 1%, which is essentially cosmetic. It shows no real commitment to serve the medically needy and shows no commitment to indigent patients, as distinct from that group of patients which may be served but who may not pay their bills, thereby producing "bad debt" on the hospital's books. The emergency policy of the hospital is such that indigents would be eligible to be served in the unlikely event catheterization was needed on an emergency basis. The application, therefore, is sufficient to meet the requirements of this portion of the rule. The means by which it does so, however; does not enhance the application when balancing all of the statutory and rule criteria to determine whether the application should be granted. 2. Availability of health personnel. Rule 10- 5.011(1) (e)9.b., Florida Administrative Code The proof demonstrates that Humana Bennett has documented the ability to staff its cardiac catheterization laboratory under the standards in this rule. 3. Coordination of services. Rule 10-5.O11(1)(e)9.e.(I) Florida Administrative Code The rule requires that proposed cardiac catheterization laboratories and facilities not performing open heart surgery must submit, at the time of certificate of need application, a written referral agreement with a facility providing open heart surgery services which is within 30 minutes' travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions. (emphasis supplied) It is undisputed that no referral agreement was included when Humana Bennett filed its application. Humana argues that it sought referral agreements with hospitals in the service district which offered open heart surgery, including Broward General Hospital, North Ridge Medical Center, Holy Cross Hospital, and Memorial Hospital, but none of those hospitals agreed to accept transfers from Humana Bennett. The executive director of Humana Bennett personally contacted an official of Florida Medical Center to obtain a referral agreement. That official specifically declined to enter into a referral agreement in order to prevent Humana Bennett from competing with FMC for cardiac catheterization services. There is no evidence that the other hospitals declined to enter into a referral agreement simply to block Humana Bennett's application. It may be that those other hospitals had other valid reasons for declining to enter into referral agreements. Nothing to the contrary was proven. Eventually, Humana Bennett did receive a referral agreement from the executive director of North Ridge Medical Center. It is dated January 8, 1988, six months after the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services declared the Humana Bennett catheterization laboratory application complete. (Humana exhibit 30) Due to the absence of a referral agreement, the Humana Bennett application should have been rejected by the Department as incomplete when submitted. 4. Service costs. Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)10. Florida Administrative Code 43. The cost for cardiac catheterizations to be provided by Humana Bennett is projected to be about the same or less than the charges of current providers. The projected charges are reasonable. The application meets this portion of the rule. 5. Relationship with the state and local health plans. Rule 10-5.011(1) (e)11. Florida Administrative Code 44. This matter has already been discussed in Section II A.1. of this order with respect to statutory criteria 381.705(1) (a), Florida Statutes, and will not be repeated, except to say that the application is not consistent with the local and state health plans and therefore does not meet this rule criteria. 6. Need determination. Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)12. and 15. Florida Administrative Code The Department's rule provides that it will "not normally" approve applications for new cardiac catheterization services unless need is shown as calculated through an algorithm. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)6., Florida Administrative Code. The algorithm is found at Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)12., Florida Administrative Code. Several versions of how the formula should be applied were presented at the hearing. Witnesses for Humana Bennett and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services found need for an additional catheterization laboratory in Broward County according to their analysis of how "need" is defined in the algorithm. Health planners for FMC and South Broward Hospital District applied the algorithm in a manner demonstrating that there is no need for an additional catheterization service. The interpretations differed in two respects. First, the health planners disagreed on the number of catheterization procedures that were performed during the 12- month period that is used under the rule to establish an historical use rate, i.e., the number of procedures performed per 100,000 population in the district in the past. They also disagreed as to the number of catheterization laboratories presently operating in Broward County. The algorithm projects the number of catheterization "procedures" that will be performed for the year in which the catheterization laboratory will begin service. The laboratory obviously will not open on the date the application is filed; but at some date in the future. That future time is the "planning horizon" for which a projected use rate in the service area is determined. An actual use rate is first determined. It is the number of catheterizations performed per 100,000 population during the 12-month period which begins 14 months prior to the date the health care facility must file its letter of intent to file an application for a new service. This actual use rate is multiplied by the projected population at the planning horizon and then divided by 100,000. The result is the projected number of procedures at the planning horizon. The projection is divided by 600 in order to establish the number of catheterization laboratories that can be approved in the District. The number of existing laboratories is subtracted from that number to determine how many, if any, additional laboratories should be approved. It is important to determine the number of "procedures" performed in the applicable 12-month period to determine the actual use rate. The higher that number, the higher will be the number of projected procedures, and therefore the more likely it will be that additional laboratories may be approved. Rule 10-5.011(1) (e)2. and 4., Florida Administrative Code, defines the terms "cardiac catheterization" and "procedure" as follows: 2. Cardiac Catheterization. Cardiac catheterization is defined as a medical procedure used as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for heart and circulatory conditions.... * * * 4. Procedure. Procedure means an angiographic study, a physiologic study or a therapeutic activity within a cardiac catheterization laboratory which utilizes the equipment customarily used in cardiac catheterization. These definitions are unclear because they are circular--a catheterization is defined as a procedure, and a procedure means a study utilized in cardiac catheterization. The term "study" is not defined by rule. Florida Medical Center contended that when a patient visited a cardiac catheterization laboratory, more than one study might take place as tubes are inserted into a blood vessel in the patient's arm or leg to diagnose circulatory conditions. Even if a patient undergoes multiple studies during one visit to the laboratory only one catheterization "procedure" takes place. In contrast, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Humana Bennett argued that if one patient underwent multiple studies during one visit, each should be counted as a different procedure. The substantive portions of Rule 10-5.011(1) (e) variously use the term catheterization or procedure. For example, in setting a minimum service volume for laboratories, Rule 10-5.011(1) (e)9.d. requires a minimum service volume defined in terms of cardiac catheterizations. On the other hand, in the need algorithm, the calculation is based upon the number of cardiac catheterization procedures. See Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)12., Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.011(1) (e)15.a.(I), and c. further add to the difficulty in interpreting the rule by using the words "catheterization" and "procedure" interchangeably: There shall be no additional adult cardiac catheterization laboratories established in a service area unless: (i) The average number of catheterizations performed per year by existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area is greater than 600;.... * * * Applications proposing to establish cardiac catheterization laboratories will not be approved if they would reduce the average volume of procedures performed by laboratories in the service area below 600 adult procedures. ...(Emphases added) The State Health Plan, Volume II, at page 95 contains a discussion which is informative on the issue of whether, in applying the need algorithm, one should count individual studies on a patient or patient visits, stating: Up until 1977 the literature showed a consensus on the need for minimum caseloads. Since 1977, expert opinion has become more divided on the issue, with many provider representatives advocating that the standards now reflected in federal and many state laws are no longer necessary and justifiable. However, a general opinion among the medical profession is that a certain minimum caseload is essential to assure quality results. ...The established federal and state minimum standards of 300 procedures annually for adult [patients] ... are believed to be adequate to maintain the expertise of the professional team engaged in this highly specialized service. (Humana exhibit 8) (Emphasis added) Thus, the term "cases," which focuses on number of patients, and "procedures" appear to be used synonymously. The National Health Planning Guidelines are referenced in the State Health Plan and were influential in the drafting of the catheterization rule. The Guidelines were published in the Federal Register on March 29, 1978, and Section 121.208(a) (1) of the Guidelines stated: There should be a minimum of 300 cardiac catheterizations,...within 3 years of initiation. in subsection (b), the Guidelines stated: Based on recommendations from the Inter-Society Commission on Heart Disease Resources, the Department [of Health, Education and Welfare] believes that a minimum level of 300 catheterizations per year is indicated to achieve economic use of resources. The report of the Inter-Society Commission on Heart Disease Resources, referenced in both the State Health Plan and the National Health Planning Guidelines, also assist in interpreting the use of the terms "catheterizations" and "procedures" in the Florida rule. That entity publishes a journal, Circulation, in which it is stated: To maintain adequate performance levels and to minimize risks, each team of physicians should perform, on the average, at least 600 adult examinations* a week, or 300 cases per annum. *An examination includes all cardiac diagnostic procedures (angiographic and physiologic studies) performed on a patient during one session in the laboratory. Report of the Inter-Society Commission for Heart Disease Resources. Circulation, Volume 53, No. 2, page 8-9 (1976) The Society's publications indicate an understanding that many patients have multiple procedures and specifically rejected a further breakdown of their caseload recommendation: in considering this matter, we have decided against further breakdown of caseload recommendations. The number of patients requiring only angiographic or physiologic evaluation is rapidly decreasing: in most cases both angiographic and selected hemodynamic studies are now performed. Therefore, in the hands of an appropriately trained and experienced team these "mixed" caseloads generally should be adequate to maintain an acceptable level of performance. Id. The Inter-Society Commission reports used the terms "procedure" and "case" interchangeably: Laboratories supporting an active coronary surgical program may generate a caseload close to 9 procedures a week or 450 cases per annum. Id. The representative of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services testified at the hearing, and stated her view that when referring to a minimum service volume of 300 catheterizations annually, Rule 10-5.011(1) (e)9.d. was speaking of the number of procedures, which could be 100 patients receiving 3 procedures, 150 patients receiving 2 procedures, or 300 patients receiving 1 procedure. Clearly more than one "procedure" can be performed during a visit to a laboratory, often through a single catheter inserted into a patient on a single occasion. Many of these "procedures" take just a few minutes. Each procedure or study may generate a separate billing to the patient, however. The more persuasive proof on how to properly county "procedures" under the rule was presented by FMC's expert health planner, Mr. Konrad, whose opinions are credited. Mr. Konrad had been employed with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and had developed the first State Health Plan. He testified that the existing rule on cardiac catheterization came from the Inter-Society Commission for Heart Disease Resources Report, which is referenced in the Federal Health Planning Law. While the Florida rule has been amended since its first promulgation, no amendment has altered the original concept regarding the definition of procedure. According to Mr. Konrad the procedure means "a case" and all studies performed during one visit to the catheterization lab constitute one procedure. The number of cardiac catheterization procedures that were performed in laboratories in HRS District X during 1986 was 7,611. The laboratories then operating were located at Broward General, FMC, Holy Cross Hospital, North Ridge, Plantation General, North Broward Medical Center, and Memorial Hospital. The counts for the numbers of procedures performed at these laboratories were reported by the facilities to the District X Local Health Council. FMC originally reported it performed 2,166 procedures in 1986. Subsequently, officials at FMC realized their figures were erroneous and notified the Local Health Council and the Department that the correct number of procedures was 1,840. The lower figure is correct. The difference in figures is accounted for by the confusion over whether a single cardiac catheterization was a "procedure" or whether a single patient catheterized for a number of studies should have been recorded as the number of "procedures" equal to the number of studies performed. This reduces the total number of procedures performed in District X during 1986 to no more than 7,611. Fewer procedures than that were likely performed, because the Local Health Council never defined the term "procedure" for the hospitals reporting to it. Consequently the numbers are probably inflated somewhat because some hospitals incorrectly counted each study as a procedure, rather than counting only the number of patient visits for catheterization as one "procedure". The July 1986 population of Broward County was 1,165,922. This figure is divided by 7,611 to produce an actual cardiac catheterization use rate per 100,000 for District X in 1986, of 652.78. The total projected population for District X during 1989, the year in which Humana Bennett intends to open its service, is 1,234,484. When the 1986 use rate is applied to this population, the estimated number of procedures for 1989 is 8,058. This figure is then divided by 600 according to Rule 10- 5.011(1)(e)15.a.(I), Florida Administrative Code, to produce the number of laboratories needed in the District at the planning horizon, which is 13. At the time the application was submitted, there were 10 existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in the district. North Broward Hospital District filed in the same batch as Humana its application for a catheterization laboratory at Imperial Point. As stated earlier, that application was approved giving a total of 11 existing or approved laboratories. There is, therefore, a need projected by the algorithm for an additional laboratory which Humana Bennett can fill. None of the cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County are providing fewer than 300 adult catheterizations per year. The limitation on additional laboratories found in Rule 10-5.011(1) (e)15.a.(II), Florida Administrative Code, therefore does not prohibit the approval of an additional laboratory. Findings with respect to Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes The prehearing stipulation indicates that Humana Bennett and HRS maintain that Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes, is not applicable to this proceeding, while the other parties maintain that it does apply. Nothing in the prehearing stipulation explains the basis on which any party argues that this statute does or does not apply. The application discloses the total cost for the project is approximately $1,300,000. Consequently, it would appear to be a "capital expenditure proposal" as that term is used in Section 381.705(2) , Florida Statutes. The definition of capital expenditure found in Section 381.702(1), Florida Statutes, refers to the dollar limit of 1 million dollars found in Section 381.706(1) (c), Florida Statutes. Section 381.705(2) does apply, and the following findings of fact are made. 1. Less costly, more efficient or appropriate alternatives to inpatient services. Section 381.705(2)(a), Florida statutes 65. No party has proven that outpatient catheterization services are a more appropriate alternative to the catheterization laboratory purposed by Humana Bennett. Moreover, all parties have stipulated that the design and construction costs, as well as equipment costs and other miscellaneous costs in Humana Bennett's proposal are reasonable. Prehearing stipulation, section D. 4 and 5. 2. Use of the existing inpatient facilities in an appropriate and efficient manner. Section 381.705(2) (b), Florida Statutes 66. Existing catheterization laboratories are performing more than the minimum service volume prescribed in Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)9. d., Florida Administrative Code, of 300 catheterizations annually. On the average, they were also performing more than the 600 catheterizations annually required by Rule 10-5.011(1)(e)15. A. (I), Florida Administrative Code. 3. Alternatives to new construction such as modernization or sharing arrangements. Section 381.705(2) (c),Florida Statutes Given the demonstration of need pursuant to the need algorithm, the establishment of a new service is one appropriate method of meeting that need. Existing catheterization laboratories do have the capacity, however, to serve many additional patients. More extensive utilization of these facilities avoids the additional capital construction and equipment costs of opening a new cardiac catheterization laboratory. The ten existing cardiac catheterization laboratories each have the ability to perform, on the average, at least 1,000 catheterizations per year. The new laboratory at Imperial Point will also have a similar capacity. The laboratories in Broward County, therefore, have an ability to provide approximately 11,000 catheterizations per year (this ignores the intermittent use of the third "convenience" laboratories at Holy Cross and at FMC). Assuming the need for 8,060 catheterization procedures at the 1989 planning horizon, there is still an excess capacity, using only existing or approved laboratories, to provide annually an additional 2,940 catheterizations. More intensive use of existing and approved facilities would certainly be a more efficient way of providing catheterization services than is spending approximately $1,300,000 to construct and equip the laboratory at Humana Bennett. 4. Problems in obtaining inpatient care in the absence of the proposed new service. Section 381.705(2)(d), Florida Statutes There is no evidence that patients will have difficulty in obtaining cardiac catheterization services in Broward County if the proposed laboratory at Humana Bennett is not approved.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application of Humana Hospital Bennett for a certificate of need to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of September, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9765 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner's facility opened in January of 1976 as the Hubert Rutland Hospital. Its name was subsequently changed to Gateway Community Hospital and, after purchase by petitioner, it became Humana Hospital Northside. Dr. D. K. Mukherjee, Board-certified in internal medicine and cardiology, came to petitioner's facility in 1976 for the prime purpose of developing a cardiac catheterization laboratory, and assisted in preparing a list of equipment necessary to begin operation of such a laboratory. On December 31, 1976, petitioner's predecessor entered into a medical equipment service agreement for cardiac catheterization and monitoring equipment. That equipment, costing less than $100,000.00, was delivered to the hospital on or before June 17, 1977. Since that time, cardiac catheterization procedures, as defined in Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, have been performed on a continuous and regular basis at petitioner's facility in Special Procedures Room No. 3. Over the past eight to nine years, the longest interval between the performance of such procedures has been approximately one or two weeks. Special Procedures Room No. 3, while also utilized for other purposes, has the equipment, staff and support services necessary for providing the studies and procedures associated with cardiac catheterization. The hospital itself is capable of providing the ancillary diagnostic services, such as hematology studies, electrocardiography, chest x-rays, blood-gas studies, pathology, blood chemistry analysis and nuclear studies pertaining to cardiology. Prior to July 1, 1977, Certificate of Need review was not required for the purchase of cardiac catheterization equipment by a hospital unless it involved a capital expenditure of more than $100,000.00. Commencing on July 1, 1977, Certificate of Need review was required when a health care facility sought to provide a substantial change in service, defined as a service which was not offered on a regular basis within the prior twelve-month period. Section 381.494(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5.02(19), Florida Administrative Code. Because of technological and scientific advances, petitioner desired to replace and update the equipment purchased in 1976 for the performance of special procedures. Accordingly, in April of 1984, it submitted an application for a Certificate of Need to replace special procedures equipment at a project cost of $1,269,000.00. The application, in Section 3 stating the need and justification for the project, noted that: "Our existing equipment is totally inadequate to perform state-of-the-art cardiac catheter- ization and coronary angioplasty. When we began performing cardiac catheterization in 1977 this equipment was adequate, but today it is totally unacceptable. This proposed equipment will not only provide state-of-the- art equipment for these procedures, but will do so in a cost-effective manner since combined utilization of such high cost equip- ment contributes to the reduction of the cost of medical care." HRS issued petitioner Certificate of Need number 3261 for the replacement of special procedures equipment at a total project cost of $1,269,000.00, as requested. However, in a cover letter transmitting the issued Certificate of Need to the petitioner, HRS noted: "Please be advised that neither this office, the Office of Licensure and Certification nor the Local Health Council has documen- tation to support the performance of cardiac catheterization procedures at this hospital." Local Health Councils are private nonprofit corporations which contract with HRS to conduct local planning activities, including the collection of data, the publication of various utilization reports and the development of Local Health Plans. When HRS reviews proposed health care projects which require a Certificate of Need, it utilizes the data submitted to it by the various Local Health Councils, particularly in those instances where its rules contain a methodology or formula which includes as a factor an accounting of existing facilities or services. Application of the methodology contained in HRS's rule for determining the need for additional cardiac catheterization laboratories requires a knowledge of the number of procedures performed per year by existing and approved laboratories. Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code. The Health Council of Pasco/Pinellas, Inc. collects data from hospitals within Pasco and Pinellas Counties regarding bed utilization and service information. Hospitals in the district are requested to complete and submit certain information on a "Monthly Hospital Utilization Form." Among the items of information requested is the number of cardiac catheterization procedures performed during the reporting period. The Health Council also publishes and distributes annual and semi-annual utilization reports for the district. There is no provision in the statutes or rules which require hospitals to report utilization or service data to the various Local Health Councils, and HRS itself does not require that such information be reported to it. It is not unusual for hospitals to report inaccurate, incomplete or inconsistent data to Local Health Councils. Indeed, it is recognized in the "1984 Annual Hospital Utilization Report for District V Pasco/Pinellas Health Council, Inc." that, while all hospitals in the District submitted monthly hospital utilization information, "One limitation to this report involves those institutions who did not, for various reasons, submit data for beds by service categories and/or data pertaining to specialty services." HRS Exhibit F, p. 1. The form utilized by the Pasco/Pinellas Health Council contains no definition of cardiac catheterization procedures and no directions as to how to complete the form. While it has regularly submitted a monthly utilization form to the Local Health Council, petitioner has never reported the performance of cardiac catheterizations at its facility. The various reports published by the Local Health Council do not list petitioner as performing cardiac catheterization procedures. While a health care facility may obtain a written determination from HRS that a given service is exempt from Certificate of Need review due to its "grandfathered" status, there is no agency rule or policy which requires a facility to obtain such a written exemption. It has generally been the agency policy that equipment and services acquired by a facility prior to the date that such acquisition became reviewable under the Certificate of Need law are not reviewable on a retroactive basis.
Findings Of Fact Case Status On October 15, 1986, Petitioner, Holy Cross Hospital, Inc. (Holy Cross), filed an application with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), for a certificate of need to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at its existent acute care hospital in Broward County, Florida. On June 12, 1987, the Department published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to deny Holy Cross' application, and Holy Cross timely petitioned for formal administrative review. Intervenors, Zachariah P. Zachariah (Zachariah), North Ridge Medical Center (North Ridge), Florida Medical Center (FMC), and North Broward Hospital District d/b/a North Broward Medical Center, and Broward General Medical Center (North Broward), current providers of cardiac catheterization services in Broward County, sought and were granted leave to intervene in this proceeding. The standing of these intervenors, with the exception of Zachariah, is not in dispute. Background Holy Cross is a private, not for profit, general acute care facility located at 4725 North Federal Highway, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Currently, Holy Cross operates 574 general acute care beds and 23 intensive rehabilitation beds. Holy Cross has, since 1974, operated an open-heart surgery program at its facility. In 1974, Holy Cross sought leave of the Department to establish a cardiac catheterization laboratory at its facility. That application was denied. As a consequence of that denial, Holy Cross actively solicited physicians to establish such a program within its hospital. In August 1976, Holy Cross negotiated a ten-year lease with Zachariah whereby it leased him 2,833 square feet of space on the third floor of the hospital for use as a cardiac catheterization laboratory. Zachariah purchased the necessary equipment, and has operated a cardiac catheterization laboratory at Holy Cross since 1976. In March 1985, following Zachariah's expansion of his laboratory facilities, he and Holy Cross executed a new lease agreement to continue the operation of his laboratory within the hospital. This lease was for 6,956 square feet of space on the third floor of the hospital and was for a five year term commencing October 15, 1985, with a five year renewal option. Currently, Zachariah has three cardiac catheterization laboratories within the space he leases at the hospital. The proposed facility Holy Cross proposes to renovate and dedicate, as a cardiac catheterization laboratory, 2,500 square feet of existing hospital space immediately adjoining Zachariah's existing catheterization laboratories. The physical renovations are estimated to cost $315,000 and equipment to cost $600,000 for a total capital expenditure of $915,000. The laboratory, as proposed, is capable of providing a range of angiographic studies and physiologic studies without the need to move patients to perform related procedures. Holy Cross currently has the capability of providing immediate endocardiac catheter pacemaking in cases of cardiac arrest, and the proposed laboratory will likewise have such capability available to it. Currently, approximately 13 physicians practicing at Holy Cross possess such skills. Holy Cross currently provides, and will continue to provide, a ranged of non-invasive cardiac or circulatory diagnostic services within its health care facility, including: hematology studies and coagulation studies; electrocardiography; chest x-ray; blood gas studies; clinical pathology studies and blood chemistry analysis; nuclear studies pertaining to cardiology; and echocardiography. Additionally, Holy Cross currently provides, and will continue to provide, the following services within its facility: pulmonary function testing; and microbiology studies. As sited, the proposed cardiac catheterization laboratory will be readily accessible to the population of Broward County. Accessibility does not, however, present a problem in Broward County since all approved facilities are located strategically throughout the county. The hours of operation for the proposed laboratory will typically be either 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with the capability of rapid mobilization of the study team for emergency procedures 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Holy Cross is fully accredited by the Joint Commission of Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) for special care units, as well as its intensive and cardiovascular intensive care unit. The parties have stipulated that the staffing requirements proposed by Holy Cross are reasonable, and that it will be able to recruit the necessary staff. Currently, Holy Cross maintains an ongoing program of staff education and skills upgrading. Additionally, Holy Cross maintains an ongoing educational program for the community whereby citizens Acre afforded the opportunity to learn what specialty services are provided by the hospital. These programs will continue to be provided by Holy Cross. The proof established that Holy Cross can be reasonably expected to perform a minimum of 300 cardiac catheterizations annually within three years following its initiation of service. The proof further established that the average number of catheterizations performed each year by existing and approved laboratories performing adult procedures in the service area was greater than 600 and that, if the Holy Cross application is approved, the average volume of procedures performed by those laboratories would not be reduced below 600 procedures each year. The service cost proposed by Holy Cross is comparable to similar institutions within the service area when patient mix, reimbursement mechanisms and cost accounting methods are taken into consideration. Need determination The Department has established by rule the methodology whereby the need for cardiac catheterization capacity in a service area shall be determined. Pertinent to this case, Rule 10-5.011(e) 12, Florida Administrative Code, provides: Need Determination. The need for cardiac catheterization capacity in a service area shall be determined by computing the protected number of cardiac catheterization procedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination...(Emphasis added). In the instant case, the proof established that between July 1985 and June 1986 7,017 cardiac catheterization procedures were performed in the service area. The population estimates from the Office of the Governor, dated January 1, 1986, demonstrate an adult population within the service area of 962,987 for January 1986, and 1,009,557 for July 1988. Utilization of this data in the methodology prescribed by the rule, calculates that 7,356.3 catheterization procedures will be performed in July 1988 (the horizon year). When divided by the 600 procedure standard, there is a need for 12.26 cardiac catheterization laboratories in the service area to support the projected number of adult procedures in July 1988. At the beginning of the review cycle for the Holy Cross application the inventory of cardiac catheterization laboratories in the service area (Broward County) was as follows: Zachariah-3, Florida Medical Center (FMC)-3, North Ridge Medical Center-2, North Broward Medical Center-1, Broward General Medical Center-1, Plantation General Hospital-1, and Memorial Hospital-1, for a total of 12 laboratories. However, one of Zachariah's laboratories and one of Florida Medical Center's laboratories are backup laboratories, and no more than two laboratories are ever utilized or capable of being utilized at those facilities simultaneously. Pertinent to this case, Rule 10-5.011(e)1, Florida Administrative Code, provides: A cardiac catheterization laboratory is defined as a room or suite of rooms in a hospital which has the equipment, staff and support services required to perform angiographic and physiologic cardiac catheterization procedures, and which is customarily used to perform cardiac catheterization procedures. The number of cardiac catheterization laboratories in a hospital is equal to the number of patients who can undergo the catheterization procedure simultaneously... (Emphasis added). Accordingly, the proof demonstrates that for purposes of calculating the need for cardiac catheterization capacity in Broward County under the rule methodology that there existed 10 cardiac catheterization laboratories in the service area for this review cycle. Therefore, there exists a numeric need for 2.26 additional cardiac catheterization laboratories in Broward County. Consistency with State and Local Health Plans Pertinent to this case, the local health plan, District X, provides, as its general policy number 3, that: Services provided by all proposed and existing facilities should be made available to all segments of the residential population regardless of the ability to pay. Priority #1 - Services and facilities should be designed to treat indigent patients to the greatest extent possible, with new project approval based in part on a documented history of provision of services to indigent patients. Priority #2 - Applicants should have documented a willingness to participate in appropriate community planning activities aimed at addressing the problem of financing for the medically indigent. With specific regard to cardiac catheterization, the local health plan contains the following pertinent recommendations: Applicants proposing to initiate or expand cardiac catheterization...must make those services available to all segments of the population regardless of the ability to pay. The provision of new cardiac catheterization surgery programs should not be approved unless they meet or exceed the standards and criteria set forth by HRS. Holy Cross currently holds a Medicaid contract with the state, and proposes that its cardiac catheterization laboratory will be available to all persons in need and independent of their ability to pay. Holy Cross is not, however, an historic provider of significant indigent care, nor does it propose significant indigent care at its proposed laboratory. According to its application, the patient day percentage breakdown at its laboratory will be as follows: medicare-59.6 percent, medicaid-1.0 percent, insurance-36.0 percent, private pay-1.7 percent, and indigent-1.7 percent The proof demonstrates that Holy Cross' basic policy is to serve in a Christian-like manner, and to serve the indigent with open arms, respect and caring. In application, however, Holy Cross' "approach" to indigent care is "if they show up, we treat them." Clearly, Holy Cross does not actively promote the availability of its services to the indigent, and it offered no proof that it participated in any community planning activities aimed at addressing the problem of financing for the medically indigent. There was no proof, however, that indigent patients in Broward County (District X) were being denied cardiac catheterization care, notwithstanding the fact that over one-half of the laboratories in the county, (Zachariah, FMC, and North Ridge) have provided little or no medicaid or indigent care within the past 2 years. Under the circumstances, Holy Cross' failure to dedicate more resources toward indigent care is less significant than it might otherwise be if such need existed. However, it must still be concluded that the Holy Cross application is not consistent with the local health plan since its proposal to provide the services regardless of ability to pay is, in view of its "approach" to serving that segment of society, an obligation that will rarely, if ever, be fulfilled. To the extent the Holy Cross application may fail to comply with statutory and rule criteria, as hereinafter discussed, it is also not consistent with the local health plan. The state health plan devotes a section to cardiac catheterization, and the Holy Cross application conforms to the recommended minimum annual average of catheterization procedures, and the recommended physical proximity between open-heart surgical capacity and cardiac catheterization laboratories. The plan also provides as a goal, to assure the appropriate availability of cardiac catheterization and open-heart surgery services at a reasonable cost. As previously noted, the costs proposed by Holy Cross are reasonable. However, in view of Zachariah's existing facilities, the proposal does little of significance to enhance availability. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. The demand for cardiac catheterization services in the district has been increasing at a significant rate over the course of the past five years. Between 1982 and 1983 the number of cardiac catheterizations performed in the service area increased over 20 percent (from 4,162 to 5,009), between 1983 and 1984 there was an approximate decrease of 1 percent, between 1984 and 1985 there was an increase of 17.8 percent, between 1985 and 1986 there was an increase of 38.9 percent, and between 1986 and 1987 a projected increase of approximately 27 percent. Annualized data for 1987 demonstrates that 9,810 procedures will be performed in 1987. The historic demand for catheterization services within the district is a reliable proxy, and demonstrates that the demand for such services will increase by at least 20 percent in the year 1988. Such increase will result in the need to accommodate an additional 1,962 procedures in the year 1988, or 981 procedures by Holy Cross' planning horizon of July 1988. Accordingly, by July 1988 the district should experience a demand for approximately 10,791 procedures. During 1987, the existent facilities within the district were projected to perform the following number of procedures: Zachariah - 1,166, FMC - 2,134, North Ridge - 2,382, Broward General Medical Center - 1,430, Plantation General - 702, North Broward Medical Center - 532, and Memorial Hospital - 1,464. The maximum capacity of a cardiac catheterization laboratory is between 1,000 and 1,400 procedures annually, depending upon the mix of patients, the skills of the cardiologist, and the hours of operation of the laboratory. North Ridge's expert, Deborah Krueger, conducted a survey of existing facilities to discover what they considered to be the maximum number of procedures they could accommodate in each of their laboratories. While not wholly reliable, as hereinafter discussed, the responses regarding the maximum number of procedures that could be accommodated in each laboratory of the existing facilities was as follows: Zachariah - 1,000, FMC -1,250, North Ridge - 1,300, Broward General Medical Center - 1,040-1,248, Plantation General - 1,000, North Broward Medical Center - no response, and Memorial Hospital - no response. Comparing the number of procedures projected for existing facilities in 1987 with the results of Ms. Krueger's survey could lead one to conclude that there is an unused capacity within the district to accommodate up to 2,584 additional procedures in 1988. Such conclusion is not, however, supported by the proof. Notwithstanding Ms. Krueger's survey, the proof demonstrated that FMC is currently at capacity. North Ridge, which estimated it could perform 1,300 procedures per lab, is projecting 2,382 procedures in 1987, only 219 procedures less than its estimated maximum capacity. Yet, the North Ridge medical director is the only physician currently performing catheterizations at the hospital, and is sometimes doing up to 17 a day and working 12 hour shifts. Under the circumstances, to suggest that North Ridge is not currently at capacity is not credible. The only facilities with available capacity are Zachariah, Plantation General, and North Broward Medical Center. These facilities have the capacity to handle an additional 1,600 procedures in 1988: Zachariah (834), Plantation General (298), and North Broward Medical Center (468). Accordingly, there exists excess capacity within the district for the relevant time frame. As previously noted, there exists no accessibility problem within the district, and there is no proof that any patient has experienced any serious problem in obtaining catheterization services. There is, further, no dispute concerning the quality of care provided by existing facilities, and no issue raised concerning the efficiency and appropriateness of existing services. The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care Holy Cross has been a provider of a broad range of services within the district since 1959. The parties stipulated that the staffing requirements proposed by Holy Cross were reasonable, that it would be able to recruit the necessary staff, and that it had the necessary resources for project accomplishment and operation. Accordingly, no issue was raised concerning Holy Cross' ability to render quality care. Therefore, it is concluded that Holy Cross has provided, and will continue to provide quality care for its patients. Availability and adequacy of alternative services There was no evidence that any alternative service (a non-inpatient catheterization laboratory) is available within the district to satisfy the need for inpatient cardiac catheterization. Probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. Holy Cross and Zachariah have, since 1976, enjoyed a mutually beneficial arrangement, albeit one of landlord and tenant. At Holy Cross' request, Zachariah established a catheterization laboratory within the hospital's facility, and has since added two additional laboratories. But for a limited number of physicians, Zachariah's laboratory enjoys significant support from and is generally accepted by the physicians on the Holy Cross medical staff. Holy Cross has certainly benefited from this arrangement by being able to provide catheterization services for its patients within the facility, and as a referral base for its open-heart surgery program. Holy Cross does not contest the quality of care offered by Zachariah, nor does it point out any credible reason why their existing arrangement cannot continue to satisfy the needs of Holy Cross and the residents of the district as a whole. Holy Cross' rationalization for its need to initiate inpatient catheterization services is that Zachariah's service is a "closed" laboratory, and that if it were permitted to establish such services its laboratory would be "open." An open laboratory, Holy Cross asserts, would increase accessibility and improve quality of care. Holy Cross' contentions, and the proof it advanced to support them, are not credited. While the proof did establish that Zachariah's laboratory was closed, the proof also demonstrated that the laboratory proposed by Holy Cross would be closed. Further, quality of care, utilization, and accessibility are not favorably or unfavorably impacted within the district by virtue of whether a laboratory is classified as open or closed. Holy Cross' proposal is, essentially, a duplication of an existing program, sited within its own facility, that has the apparent capacity to meet the needs of Holy Cross and the community at large. Under the circumstances, the cooperative arrangement between Holy Cross and Zachariah offers a more economical alternative than Holy Cross' proposal. The need in the service district for special equipment and services not accessible in adjoining areas. There was no proof offered that any need existed in the service district for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. The need for research and educational facilities. No proof was offered concerning the need for any research or educational facilities. Further, no proof was offered that Holy Cross proposed any such programs, or that its services would be available to health professionals for training purposes. Use of resources. The Department asserts that the proposed project is a waste of hospital space, a valuable resource, that could be more appropriately utilized in light of Zachariah's existing facility than through dedication as a catheterization laboratory. No proof was offered, however, to demonstrate what other health service would be a more appropriate use of such resource. The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the project The immediate financial feasibility of the project is not at issue since the parties have stipulated that Holy Cross has the available resources for project accomplishment and operation. At issue, however, is the long-term financial feasibility of the project. Holy Cross premises its financial feasibility analysis on its projection that it will achieve 800 catheterization procedures in its first year of operation, and 850 procedures in its second year of operation. Holy Cross proposes a patient day percentage breakdown as follows: medicare - 59.6 percent, medicaid - 1.7 percent, insurance - 36.0 percent, private pay - 1.7 percent, and indigent - 1.7 percent. The rate per procedure advanced by Holy Cross is $1,000 during the first year of operation, and $1,050 during the second year of operation. Based on the foregoing assumptions, the Holy Cross pro forma statement of revenue and expenses projected a $57,700 net income at the conclusion of its second year of operation. That pro forma contains, however, several errors which must be considered. First, its bad debt assumption of $12,000 was understated by $24,000. Second, its overhead allocation of $183,600 was overstated by 50 percent ($91,800). Third, its expense line item for supplies failed to reflect a 5 percent inflation factor which results in a supply expense of $223,000 instead of the $213,000 projected by Holy Cross. Fourth, Holy Cross inappropriately adopted a 40 year depreciation schedule, as opposed to 20 years, for its renovations resulting in an understatement of depreciation by $8,000 per year. Adjusting the Holy Cross pro forma for the foregoing errors and omissions demonstrates that the proposed project will generate a net income of $107,000 at the conclusion of its second year of operation if it can attain its projected 850 procedures. Whether Holy Cross can attain such level of service is, however, problematic. By July 1988 there will be only 981 new cardiac catheterization procedures demanded within the district. Existing facilities with capacity will be competing for those procedures along with Holy Cross, and all facilities will be striving to maintain their share of the current market. Under the circumstances, it is not reasonable to conclude that Holy Cross can attain its projection solely from increased demand but, rather, that it must likewise compete with existing providers for a portion of their existing market share. Zachariah, whose existing laboratories are located on the same floor and adjacent to the facility proposed by Holy Cross has the capacity to accommodate up to 834 additional procedures. There is no dispute regarding the quality of care offered by Zachariah, and his service enjoys significant support from the physicians on the Holy Cross medical staff. To penetrate the catheterization market, Holy Cross must therefore not only disrupt physician referral patterns district wide, but must also disrupt such patterns within its own facility. Holy Cross did not, however, advance any plan to market its proposed service. To demonstrate its ability to attract referrals, Holy Cross undertook a physician survey which, if accepted, would demonstrate that it could capture 269 to 327 procedures. Such survey was not, however, independently verified and was otherwise not a reliable indicator of project utilization. At best, it demonstrated interest in an alternative facility, but its utilization projections were merely speculative. Holy Cross also pointed to the recent success of Plantation General as indicative of the reasonableness of its 850 procedure projection. Plantation General initiated its catheterization services in April 1985. Notwithstanding the fact that it was located in close proximity to FMC, had no open-heart surgery program, and had no referral base, Plantation General attained 759 procedures by the end of 1986. Juxtaposed with Plantation General, Holy Cross has a long-standing open-heart surgery program and broad physician referral base. While the Holy Cross analogy is inviting, it is unpersuasive. While Plantation General may have been at 795 procedures by the end of 1986, its 1987 performance dropped to 702. Additionally, North Broward Medical Center initiated service in January 1986, and it is projected to only reach 532 procedures by the end of 1987. On balance, the proof fails to demonstrate that Holy Cross can reasonably expect to attract the necessary referrals to reach its projection of 850 procedures, or any lesser number of procedures, that would render its project financially feasible in the long term. Needs of entities providing service to individuals not residing in the service district. There was no proof that Holy Cross provided a substantial portion of its services or resources to individuals not residing in the service district such as to demonstrate special needs and circumstances for its proposed project. The probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing cardiac catheterization services. Holy Cross stipulated that all intervenors, except Zachariah, have standing to participate in this proceeding. Accordingly, it is established, except for Zachariah, that the initiation of the proposed service will substantially adversely impact the existing cardiac catheterization programs at those facilities. There was, however, no reliable proof that such competition would adversely affect the supply of catheterization services. Likewise, there was no competent proof that such competition would improve the delivery of health services. Regarding Zachariah, the proof demonstrated that he would lose patients if the proposed service is initiated. While the magnitude of his loss could not be quantified because dependent on future events, it must be concluded that since Holy Cross would disrupt the existing referral patters he has established with Holy Cross' medical staff, Zachariah's program would be substantially adversely affected by the proposed project. Costs of Construction. The parties stipulated that the costs for construction and equipment are reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Holy Cross' application for a certificate of need to initiate inpatient cardiac catheterization services. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 12th day of February, 1988.
