Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of federal and state Medicaid funds, and is authorized by statute to provide payments for medical services. Respondent, Marvin H. Ledbetter, is a doctor of osteopathy who is enrolled as a general practitioner provider in the Medicaid Program. His professional office is in Ormond Beach, Florida where he is engaged in family practice. Under the Program, Ledbetter is assigned a provider number (48220-0) which is used to bill Medicaid for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. During calendar year 1981, which is the only time period in question, Ledbetter received $42,809 in Medicaid reimbursements from HRS, of which $28,062 related to fees for Medicaid hospital patients. The latter category of fees is at issue. In order to qualify for federal matching Medicaid funds HRS must meet certain federally-imposed requirements, including the establishment of a program integrity section designed to insure that all Medicaid services are medically necessary. If they are not, HRS is obliged to seek recoupment of funds paid to the provider. This proceeding involves an attempt by HRS to recoup certain funds paid to Ledbetter for hospital services. After providing medical services to various hospital patients, Ledbetter completed and sent in the necessary forms to obtain payment. As noted earlier, these payments totaled $28,062 during 1981. Upon receipt of the forms, HRS input the information from the forms into a computer data base, along with similar information from other Medicaid providers throughout the State. This information included, among other things, the number of admissions, number of discharges, amount paid for hospital services and length of stay. The retention of such data is necessary so that possible overpayments may be detected by HRS through the statistical analysis of claims submitted by a group of providers of a given type. Because Ledbetter's total discharges exceeded the average of other family physicians throughout the State, the computer generated a report which flagged Ledbetter for further review and examination. An HRS analyst conducted such a review of Ledbetter's records, and found his average hospital length of stay for patients to be acceptable when compared to the average physician in the State. This report was forwarded to the HRS peer review coordinator who randomly selected thirty of Ledbetter's patients from the computer, and obtained their patient charts (numbering sixty-eight). Such a statistical calculation is authorized by Rule 10C-7.6(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A medical consultant employed by HRS then reviewed twelve of the sixty-eight charts and recommended the records be sent to a Peer Review Committee (PRC) for its review and recommendation. This committee is authorized by Rule 7C-7.61(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code serves under contract with HRS, and is composed of eight members of the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association. It is their responsibility to review the files of physicians whose Medicaid payments are questioned by HRS's program integrity section. When Ledbetter's records were forwarded to the PRC by HRS, the transmittal letter stated that a "study" of his records had been made, and that said study revealed "overutilization of inpatient hospital services" and "excessive lengths of stay." After a PRC review was conducted in early 1984, the records were returned to HRS with a notation that "mild overutilization" had occurred. According to informal guidelines used by the PRC, this meant that Ledbetter's overutilization fell within the range of 0 percent to 20 percent. HRS accepted these findings but for some reason initially determined that a 40 percent overutilization had occurred, and that Ledbetter was overpaid in 1981 by 40 percent for his hospital services. Finding this amount to be inconsistent with the mild overutilization guidelines, HRS arbitrarily added back two days to each patient's hospital stay, which decreased overutilization to 33.8 percent, or $9,505.06 in overpayments. By proposed agency action issued on May 18, 1984, it billed Ledbetter this amount, thereby precipitating the instant controversy. All of the patients in question were from the lower income category, and most were black. Their home conditions were generally less than desirable, and the ability of the parents to supply good nursing care to ill or sick children was in doubt. At the same time, in 1981 Ledbetter was working an average of 56 hours per week in the emergency room of a local hospital and devoted only minimal time to his family practice. Because of this Ledbetter's number of hospital admissions greatly exceeded the norm when compared to general practitioners who engaged in an office practice. Consequently, he received most of these patients through the emergency room rather than his office and was dealing with patients whose socioeconomic conditions were an important consideration. These factors must be taken into account in analyzing Ledbetter's patient records. HRS does not contend that Ledbetter failed to perform the services for which he was paid--rather, it questions only whether some of the admissions were medically necessary and whether some of the lengths of stay were too long. In this regard, conflicting expert testimony was offered by the parties concerning the amount of overutilization, if any. Expert testimony by two local doctors of osteopathy support a finding that only mild overutilization of admissions and lengths of stay occurred. This is corroborated by HRS's expert (Dr. Smith) and by the testimony of its "live" expert, Dr. Conn, who conceded that lengths of stay were only "a little bit too long." The more persuasive testimony also establishes that while mild overutilization falls within the range of 0 percent to 20 percent, 10 percent is an appropriate median in this proceeding. Using this yardstick, Ledbetter should reimburse HRS for 10 percent for his billings, or $2,806.20.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent repay petitioner $2,086.20 in excess Medicaid payments received for calendar year 1981 claims. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1985.
The Issue Whether the application of Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Inc. (CON 8740) for a 50-bed general acute care hospital in South Brevard County should be granted?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Wuesthoff The applicant for CON 8740 is Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation. Wuesthoff operates a general acute care hospital (the "Hospital" or the "Rockledge campus") in Rockledge, Florida. According to the division of the county into three areas (north, central, and south) ascribed to by Wuesthoff, Rockledge is in Central Brevard County. Wuesthoff's parent corporation is a not-for-profit corporation, Wuesthoff Health Systems, Inc. (the "Wuesthoff System"). The Wuesthoff System operates health care providers across the health care spectrum. Among the entities controlled by the Wuesthoff System is Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., which operates a home health agency, a hospice, a durable medical equipment service and a 114-bed skilled nursing facility. The Wuesthoff Foundation, responsible for fundraising activities for all components of the Wuesthoff System and Care Span, a medical services organization which owns and operates physician practices, are also under the umbrella of the Wuesthoff System. The health care system operated by the Wuesthoff System serves residents in and around Brevard County and, to a limited extent, beyond. Examples of its service throughout Brevard County are the hospice, the durable medical equipment-company, and a reference laboratory. The hospice, for example, is licensed and serves all of Brevard County. The reference laboratory, located in Viera, provides services throughout Broward County and to other counties in Florida. The Wuesthoff System also owns a mobile health unit that travels throughout the county to provide health care services. The Wuesthoff System owns two outpatient clinics or "broad based diagnostic clinics" (Tr. 98) in Brevard County. One is on Merritt Island; the other is located in Sun Tree. Home health services are provided from a base of three different offices in the county. Similar to some of the other services offered by Wuesthoff, its home health services are provided throughout the county. Although it draws patients from throughout the county, most of Wuesthoff's hospital admissions come from Central Brevard County where the Hospital is located. If one defines "Central Brevard County" to include Port St. John and Sun Tree Viera, the sites of the northernmost and southernmost physician practices owned or operated by Care Span, then all of the practices in the Wuesthoff System are within Central Brevard County. Ownership of these practices does not restrict the physicians in them from referring patients for treatment outside the Wuesthoff System. But consolidation of the various services offered by the practices (diagnostic and radiology services, for example) enables Wuesthoff to strengthen its presence in Central Brevard County. The result is "additional volume" (Tr. 164) for the Hospital. The Hospital contains 268 acute care beds, 30 psychiatric beds, and five hospice beds, for a total of 303 beds. (It also contains 10 Level II Neonatal Intensive Care Unit beds.) If the project subject to CON review in this proceeding is ultimately approved, 100 of these beds will be de-licensed, leaving a 203-bed facility. HRMC Holmes Regional Medical Center ("HRMC") is a 528-bed regional, not-for-profit hospital, headquartered in Melbourne, Florida, operating on two acute care campuses under a single hospital license. One campus is the site of a 428-bed tertiary care facility in Melbourne; the other is a 60-bed general acute care community hospital in Palm Bay. Both facilities are in the southern portion of Brevard County. In addition to the 428 general medical and pediatric beds operated at the Melbourne facility, HRMC operates there a 10-bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit. HRMC is accredited by the Joint Commission for Accreditation on Health Care Organizations ("JCAHO"). It operates the only hospice program in the county accredited with commendation by the JCAHO; the only comprehensive community cancer program that has been accredited by the American College of Surgeons; the only American Sleep Disorders Association accredited sleep lab; the only American College of Radiology accredited respiratory therapist department; the only certified pulmonary function lab; and, the only life flight helicopter in Brevard County for hospital transports. As a regional medical center, HRMC provides open heart surgery, tertiary, orthopedic and neurosurgical referrals through a seven-county area, and provides trauma support for the central and south central Atlantic Coast in the State of Florida. It is the only designated trauma center in Brevard County. HRMC was founded 60 years ago by the community and has been a not-for-profit, community-based hospital ever since. The mission of HRMC is to improve, regardless of ability to pay, the health status of every member of the community through collaborative and cooperative agreements with other organizations and agencies it its service area. To represent the community's interests, HRMC's Board is composed of community leaders, educators, and employers. HRMC plays an active role in the community. The program denominated HOPE (Health Outreach Production and Education) is a collaborative effort by the Brevard County Public Health Unit, the American Cancer Society, the School Board, the County Commission and HRMC to solve community health problems. There are currently nine HOPE sites, and three HOPE centers. Among the purposes of the HOPE sites and centers is meeting the unique needs of children with developmental disabilities. Cape Canaveral Hospital, Health First and HFHP Cape Canaveral Hospital, Inc. ("CCH") is the licenseholder for a 150-bed hospital approximately five miles east of Wuesthoff in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Like Wuesthoff, Cocoa Beach is located in Central Brevard County. In August of 1995, HRMC entered into an agreement with CCH to create Health First, Inc. The presidents/chief operating officers of HRMC and CCH are employees of Health First. Similar to the Wuesthoff System, Health First controls the operations of its hospital facilities (HRMC and CCH) and owns and operates physician practices, health clinics, a home health agency, a hospice, and a skilled nursing facility. Health First is the sole shareholder of a Florida not- for-profit corporation known as Health First Health Plans, Inc. ("HFHP"). HFHP is the largest managed care organization in Brevard County operating both a traditional health maintenance organization ("HMO") and a Medicare HMO. Other Nearby Hospitals Parrish Medical Center, operated by a statutorily created tax district, is located in Titusville. If the county is considered to contain three distinct areas (north, central, and south) as proposed by Wuesthoff, Parrish is the only hospital in North Brevard County. Sebastian River Medical Center is located in Indian River County, south of Brevard County. Located in a relatively rural area, it is a small hospital. It provides no tertiary services. It draws some patients from South Brevard County. These patients would otherwise in all probability seek hospital services from a Brevard County hospital. Second Attempt by Wuesthoff Wuesthoff's CON application seeks to establish a new 50-bed general acute care hospital in South Brevard County. This is not the first time Wuesthoff has attempted to obtain such a CON. It applied earlier in CON 8597 for a 50-bed hospital in South Brevard County. In the first attempt, the Agency preliminarily denied the application. Wuesthoff petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. Following receipt of a Recommended Order entered in DOAH Case No. 97-0389 that CON 8597 be denied, Wuesthoff withdrew its application and dismissed its petition for a formal administrative hearing. The Agency entered a "final order" closing its file and dismissing Wuesthoff's petition in light of the application's withdrawal. (Legal proceedings which followed issuance of the order are briefly described in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order.) No New Beds in the Subdistrict Proposed by the Application By the application subject to this proceeding, Wuesthoff does not propose the addition of new beds to Brevard County (the acute care subdistrict at issue, designated by the Agency as Subdistrict 7-1.) In fact, because of Wuesthoff's commitment to delicense 100 beds as a condition of the approval of its application, the granting of the application will result in a net loss of 50 hospital beds in the subdistrict. "[F]ixed need pool[s] only appl[y] to the addition of new beds to a subdistrict." (Tr. 3468). That the fixed need pool resulted in a published need of zero for general acute care hospital beds for the batching cycle in which Wuesthoff's application was filed, therefore, has "no bearing" (Id.) on the issues in this proceeding. For the same reason (that granting Wuesthoff's application will not result in the addition of new general acute care beds in the district) the applicant is not required to prove the existence of "not normal circumstances" to overcome any presumption created by the calculation of the fixed need pool as zero. The Proposed Project The site of the proposed hospital, 43 acres purchased by Wuesthoff for approximately $2.5 million, is on Wickham Road in the city of Melbourne. Twenty of the 43 acres will be devoted to a medical complex of which the 50-bed hospital will be a part. The complex will be "one building that has three very definite components." (Tr. 83). The three components are "an ambulatory and diagnostic center" (Id.), a medical office building, and the 50-bed hospital. The diagnostic center is CON- exempt and the medical office building has been issued a certificate-of-need. Although committed to construct the diagnostic facility and the medical office building at least since March of 1997, at the time of hearing, no construction permits for the property had been obtained nor had any activity on the two components been commenced. Nonetheless, Wuesthoff remains committed toward construction of the diagnostic center and the office building regardless of the outcome in this proceeding. Although the proposed hospital will not provide tertiary services, it will provide all services typically provided in a community hospital. These include obstetrics, pediatrics, and emergency services in a 24-hour emergency department. The services to be offered will not be unique in the subdistrict; all are presently available in the community. In other words, the services to be offered will duplicate services presently offered by existing providers. The estimated cost of the 50-bed hospital proposed in CON 8740 is $38,512,961, a cost that, in the case of a not-for- profit hospital, will ultimately be born by the public "one way or another." (Tr. 2402.) Wuesthoff's application included projections of revenues and expenses attributable to the proposal for the proposed construction period and the first two years of operation. It also included, as required, audited financial statements for two years and a listing of all Wuesthoff's capital projects planned, pending or underway at the time of the filing of the application. A Purpose of CON Law One of the purposes of CON review of an application for a new hospital is "to limit unnecessary, costly duplication of services that are available at other hospitals . . . at least where those services are being provided at reasonable costs." (Tr. 2401-02). Preliminary Agency Action Initially, AHCA Staff intended to recommend denial of Wuesthoff's application. After a meeting with the Director of AHCA, the decision was made to approve the application. The most important factor weighing in favor or approval was one related to competition and costs of hospital services to the ultimate consumer of the services, "[n]amely that . . . large HMO providers have no access to [HRMC] . . . or have been unable to get contractual relationships with [HRMC]." HRMC No. 75, p. 20. The meeting with the Director clarified the Agency's priorities. On July 11, 1997, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") containing its determination that the application should be approved. This proceeding was initiated on August 15, 1997, when HRMC filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on August 15, 1997, in order to challenge the Agency's decision. Need in Relation to the District Health Plan: Section 408.035(1)(a), F.S. The portion of the District 7 Local Health Plan governing the transfer of existing beds includes five parts. Preference is given to applicants that provide documentation of compliance with the five parts. The first part addresses need in the service area proposed to receive the beds. In addressing specific populations, access is one of the considerations. There was no published need for beds to be provided if the application is granted. "[A]t the time the application was filed the Agency's formula showed in excess of 342 beds. [At the time of hearing], the current formula shows an excess of 333 acute care beds for Brevard County." (Tr. 3385). There are no barriers (such as geographic barriers) typically associated with access to acute care services in the subdistrict. Every resident of Brevard County has access to a general acute care hospital within a drive time of 30 minutes usually and 40 minutes at the most. In South Brevard County, Holmes Regional at its two campuses provides high quality inpatient care and excellent medical services. Wuesthoff's hospital in Central Brevard County and Sebastian Medical Center in the adjacent county to the south also serve some of the residents of South Brevard County. Wuesthoff does not receive preference under the first part of the district plan applicable to this proceeding. The second part of the local health plan applicable to this proceeding governs impact to the parent facility including projected occupancy declines, curtailing of service effect on operating cost, use of vacated space at the main campus and charge changes. "[T]here would be minimal utilization decline at the Rockledge facility tied to some redirection of patients from Rockledge to south Brevard." (Tr. 1222). The space that will be vacated will be reused. Wuesthoff receives preference under this part of the district plan. The third part calls for documentation of improvement of access by at least 25 minutes to at least 10% of the population or a minimum of at least 35,000 people. While Wuesthoff's proposal will provide a competitive alternative to substantially more than 10% of the population of South Brevard County, a number in excess of 35,000 people, access to acute care hospital services is presently satisfactory in South Brevard County. Wuesthoff does not receive any preference under this part of the plan. The fourth part relates to the commitment of the applicant to the provision of charity care and care to the medically indigent. Wuesthoff meets this preference based on its commitment that 15% of the discharges from the proposed facility will be Medicaid and charity care. The fifth part addresses the applicant's participation in indigent care programs in the county. Wuesthoff participates in a significant number of community benefit and outreach programs that meet the concerns of this part: There is the We Care Program, . . . a distributed medical access point . . . [and]. . . the United Order of True Sisters, . . .a service group which Wuesthoff supports. Wuesthoff works with a CMS program to provide baby and young children support services. Wuesthoff was involved with the development of the Children's Advocacy Center . . . a community-based program. It's a participant in the Health Start Coalition. And Wuesthoff has also sponsored its own mobile health program with a specific focus and purpose to provide care to [the indigent]. (Tr. 1225). Wuesthoff clearly meets this preference. On balance, despite the lack of an access problem for residents of the subdistrict, Wuesthoff meets the need criteria identified in the applicable portion of the district plan. The Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization, and Adequacy of Like and Existing Health Care Services in the Service District: Section 408.035(1)(b),F.S. There is an excess of capacity in acute care beds in Brevard County. Despite an increase in population from 1993 to 1997 of about 2% per year overall and about 3.5% per year in the populace over 65 years of age, the use rate of hospital services declined. In 1993, the use rate was 600 acute care patient days per thousand population. In 1997, the rate was 484 acute care patients per thousand. The occupancy rates for Brevard County hospitals, despite the population increase, is also trending downward. In 1990, overall occupancy of hospital beds in Brevard County was 63%. In 1997, it was approximately 53%. This is due to a number of factors. Managed care penetration has increased; managed care exerts influence to hold down admissions and inpatient days; and there has also been a shift from inpatient surgical procedures to outpatient surgical procedures. The SunTree/Viera area, mid-way between Wuesthoff and Holmes Regional, is the most rapidly growing area of its size in Brevard County. As opposed to areas south of the SunTree/Viera area, where the overwhelming majority of patients use Holmes Regional for hospital services, the SunTree/Viera area is subject to active competition between Wuesthoff and HRMC for patients. Holmes Regional has been shown to be a consistent low charge provider operating within the expected range of outcomes. Furthermore, HRMC has performed as one of the top five hospitals in Florida in reducing overall Cesarean-Section births and increasing vaginal births after Cesarean ("VBAC"). This is important because "unnecessary Cesarean Section presents a real risk for both the mom and the baby . . . [and] the cost to the State for Cesarean Sections performed when vaginal birth would be a desirable alternative added about $3,000 per delivery to the State funded [deliveries]." (HRMC No. 77, p. 1091). Holmes Regional has had the lowest Cesarean Section rate in the county and the highest VBAC rate in the County. The construction of the proposed facility would not significantly increase access to hospital services for Brevard County patients. Holmes Regional delivers the majority of Medicaid babies in the county and is also a contract provider for Children's Medical Services. Ten years ago or so, in recognition of a substantial portion of the population in Brevard County without health insurance, Holmes Regional collaborated with the school board, the public health unit, civic organizations and others to create two school-based community health clinics. "[T]argeted at young families and children" (HRMC No. 77, p. 1063), the clinics provide pro bono health care services. The collaboration was the genesis of the HOPE program. The HOPE program's agenda was expanded to include a mobile clinic to reach those in need of pro bono services who were without transportation to the school-based clinics. The agenda was again enlarged to provide integrated services for children with developmental and cognitive disabilities and delays. Holmes Regional provides direct funding of approximately $1.5 million per year through operational costs of the HOPE program. Holmes Regional not only provides funding to HOPE but it subsidizes salaries of nurses, midwives, and obstetricians directly employed by the Public Health Unit, whose duties include the provision of medical care to the indigent. Dr. Manuel Garcia, Medical Director of the Public Health Unit in Brevard County for over 20 years until his retirement in 1998 offered the following in his testimony in the hearing before Administrative Law Judge Johnston (admitted into evidence in this proceeding as HRMC No. 65) about Holmes Regional's support of the Public Health Unit: "Holmes has always been willing to go the extra mile to help the Health Department with other programs and activities." HRMC No. 65, p. 1211. With regard to the question of which hospital "in Brevard County sets the pace in providing indigent care" (Id.) Dr. Garcia answered: ll the hospitals do a pretty good job . . . [t]here is no doubt that Holmes has been more aggressive in terms of getting into the community to kind of use all the resources available and putting together different organizations and agencies in order to provide more services to the poor in the community. They have been going the extra mile . . . (HRMC Ex. No. 65, pgs. 1211, 1212.) Holmes Regional's efforts in support of the Public Health Unit have continued following Dr. Garcia's tenure. At the same time, "it is true" (Tr. 274) that Wuesthoff, Cape Canaveral, and Parrish Medical Center all "go the extra mile in providing services to the patients that come through the health department." (Id.) Holmes Regional works with the Brevard County Public Health Unit, whose duties include provision of medical care to the poor and indigent patients in the county to develop a better system for giving prenatal care to Medicaid and indigent mothers. In 1998, HRMC provided $10 million of free charity for indigent patients not admitted through HOPE. General community donations and contributions totaled $542,000 and in-kind contributions totaled $714,000. The HOPE program, funded entirely by Holmes Regional, paid $1.1 million in clinical services for staff, pharmacy, services, and supplies to operate its clinics. In addition to these direct dollars, HRMC contributed 2.1 million in uncompensated services to the HOPE program in 1998. The HOPE program has been honored for ground-breaking work in community health improvement and for improving life in Florida through the American Hospital Association's Nova Award and the Heartland Award from the Governor of Florida. Holmes Regional supports a variety of agencies to provide care to AIDS patients. One such clinic is the Comprehensive Health Clinic. In existence since 1991, it currently treats 400 AIDS patients. Its services are mostly paid for through federal programs. Without the assistance of HRMC, the clinic would not be able to provide the quality of services it offers these AIDS patients. Holmes Regional is involved with several children's health programs, including a Healthy Families Program providing in-kind screening assessment. Health Kids Plan subscribers are provided access to managed care insurance products by Health First Health Plans, the managed care company affiliated with Holmes Regional through its parent, Health First, Inc. The company loses "hundreds of thousands of dollars" (Tr. 2108) on the Health Kids segment of its business. There was no evidence presented that persons in need of quality, general acute care services are not able to obtain those services at existing providers in Brevard County. There is no lack of availability or access to general acute care services on either geographic or financial grounds. The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the Applicant's Record of Providing Quality of Care: Section 408.035(1)(c), F.S. Wuesthoff is capable of providing quality inpatient health care services and has done so in the past. The Availability and Adequacy of Other Health Care Facilities in the District which may serve as Alternatives to the Health Care Facilities and Health Services to be Provided by the Applicant: Section 408.035(1)(d), F.S. There are available alternatives to the inpatient services proposed by Wuesthoff. The existing providers of acute care services have excess capacity to absorb any increase in the utilization of acute care services in the county. Utilization of the services Wuesthoff proposes, moreover, have been in decline in relation to the earlier part of the decade of the nineties. From 1993 to 1997, inpatient surgery procedures conducted in Brevard County declined approximately 18.8%, a trend consistent with the statewide trend. In 1998, "the number of inpatient procedures pretty much level[ed] off." (Tr. 3410). In contrast, the number of outpatient procedures in the county rose in 1997 from the number conducted in 1993. For each year in the same time period, the number of outpatient surgical procedures conducted in the county far exceeded the number of inpatient ones. In 1997, for example, there were more than twice as many outpatient procedures as inpatient. The move toward outpatient procedures is the result of health care providers seeking alternatives to hospitalization. Among the alternatives in the case of surgical procedures are the provision of those procedures on an outpatient basis performed in physician offices and ambulatory surgical centers. There has been a decline in Brevard County in utilization of other services Wuesthoff proposes for its 50-bed hospital. During the period of 1993-1997, while the population of Brevard County was growing at a rate in excess of 2% per year, obstetric admissions as a percentage of admissions to Brevard hospitals declined. Pediatric admissions did likewise. Not surprisingly, therefore, there is excess capacity for pediatric and obstetrical beds in Brevard County. With 66 reported available beds in Brevard County, the average daily census is about 34 beds. The average daily census for the 86 pediatric beds in the county is about 32 to 35. At the time of hearing, available data for 1998 showed a continued decline in pediatric bed demand and "[b]ased on the annualized data . . . a very slight increase" (Tr. 3402) in obstetric bed demand. The excess capacity demonstrated for the period from 1993 through 1997 remains. Although alternatives are available, they are not adequate for one reason. That reason is a competitive problem which exists in South Brevard County, discussed in Findings of Fact Nos. 91-107, below. Probable Economies and Improvements in Service that May be Derived from Operation of Joint, Cooperative, or Shared Health Care Resources: Section 408.035(1)(e), F.S. Wuesthoff does not propose its new hospital operate a joint, cooperative, or shared program with any entity except its Rockledge facility. It proposes the sharing of resources with its main facility in Rockledge. "The services that are being proposed for the South Brevard hospital [the proposed hospital] are a subset of what's there now." (Tr. 1257). The proposed services, therefore, are a duplication of existing services. There are some economies of scale and benefits enjoyed by a second campus of a hospital by virtue of the first hospital's existence, but generally, it is less efficient for a hospital to operate two campuses. The Need in the Service District for Special Equipment and Services which are not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas: Section 408.035(1)(f), F.S. Wuesthoff does not intend to provide equipment that is not available within the county or in adjacent districts. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities, Health Care Practitioners, and Doctors of Osteopathy and Medicine at the Student, Internship and Residency Training Levels: Section 408.035(1)(g), F.S. This need is met in Brevard County. The Brevard County hospitals are active in community training programs in conjunction with Brevard County Community Hospital and the University of Florida. Holmes Regional has institutional training programs with the University of Florida, All Children's Hospital, the local vo-tech, and the University of Central Florida, in addition to other community programs. Immediate and Long-term Financial Feasibility of the Proposal: Section 408.035(1)(i), F.S. a. Immediate Financial Feasibility. Immediate financial feasibility is determined by whether the applicant has adequate financial resources to fund the capital costs of the project and the financial ability to fund short-term operation losses. The project costs projected in Schedule 1 of Wuesthoff's application, taking into account inflation and other factors arising from delays associated with this proceeding, are reasonable and appropriate. Wuesthoff proposes to finance the project with $10.5 million in existing funds and $28 million in debt financing. At the time of hearing, Wuesthoff had $51 million in cash assets on its balance sheet available to cover the $10.5 million proposed to come from existing funds. The $28 million in debt financing was proposed in the application to be provided by "proceeds from a fixed rate bond issue." (Wuesthoff No. 1, Vol. I of II, Schedule 3 Assumptions.) "The interest rate for the debt is expected to be approximately 6.5%." (Id.) As part of its case for immediate financial feasibility, Wuesthoff presented a letter from The Robinson- Humphrey Company, Inc., dated April 6, 1999. In support of the opinion that Wuesthoff would qualify for tax exempt financing, the company wrote: Based on our long relationship and thorough understanding of Wuesthoff and its strategic direction, we believe that the rating agencies, bond insurers and capital markets will react positively to the Hospital's project. In addition, based on the Hospital's ability to secure a competitive insurance bid on its Series 1996 Bonds, the Hospital will be able to secure a new competitive bond insurance policy as well as credit ratings in the "A" category from the rating agencies in conjunction with the financing to help fund a portion of the proposed facility. Based on today's market conditions, the average interest rates available on a 30-year tax-exempt bond issue would be in the range of 5.25% to 5.50% based on an "A" rating category issue and "AAA/Aaa" rated issue with bond insurance, respectively. Although it is difficult to anticipate the interest rate environment throughout 1999, we would expect rates to be in the 5.50% to 5.75% range , using recent interest history as a benchmark. (Wuesthoff No. 3, pgs. 1 and 2). After testimony with regard to the letter by Wuesthoff's witness Rebecca M. Colker, qualified as an expert in health care finance, the following colloquy between Ms. Colker and Wuesthoff's counsel took place at hearing: Now, based on your assessment of the marketplace and your investigation of the marketplace, do you have an opinion as to whether Wuesthoff has the ability to finance the project that it proposed in [its] application . . .? A. Yes, sir, I feel [Wuesthoff] has the ability to finance the project. (Tr. 179). During the hearing, but after Ms. Colker's testimony, allegations surfaced publicly that Wuesthoff had violated the law with respect to its tax-exempt status as a "501(c)(3) organization" under the Internal Revenue Code by engaging in political activity and obtaining private benefit. Proof of the violations exposes Wuesthoff to revocation of its tax-exempt status. At the time of hearing, the IRS had not determined the truth of the allegations. If the IRS determines that the violations occurred, there are penalty options available to the Service short of revocation of Wuesthoff's tax exempt status. These options are referred to as intermediate sanctions. In addition, the IRS may enter a closing agreement with the offender in which an intermediate sanction is accepted in lieu of revocation. Wuesthoff, moreover, can take certain steps in mitigation of any ultimate penalty imposed by the IRS. Wuesthoff presented evidence that "upon a resolution of the allegations of wrongdoing which falls short of revocation of Wuesthoff's tax exempt status, there will be no cloud upon Wuesthoff's ability to obtain the tax exempt debt financing it has proposed." Joint Proposed Recommended Order of Wuesthoff Memorial, Inc., and the Agency for Health Care Administration, p. 39. Such a resolution, if it is the one chosen by the IRS, can reasonably be expected to occur within a single year. In the meantime, whatever the outcome of the IRS' dealing with the allegations, their very existence jeopardizes Wuesthoff's ability to obtain tax exempt debt financing. Given what he had heard and read about the allegations, Mr. Todd Holder, an investment banker who provides "basically the same services that Robinson-Humphrey would provide to a hospital client" (Tr. 3337) testified: At this time, my firm would not underwrite these bonds [proposed by Wuesthoff] and I wouldn't imagine at this time any firm would underwrite these bonds . . . (Tr. 3339). If Wuesthoff's tax exempt status were revoked, its bonds would be in jeopardy of being called to cover loss to existing bond holders. Such action would affect its bond rating. A BBB rating would involve approximately a 3% rise in interest rates. If its rating were to fall below investment grade, the interest rate could rise 5% or more. Based on a $28 million issue, the amount Wuesthoff proposes for financing the new facility, each percentage point rise in interest rate equates to an annual debt service cost of $250,000. Furthermore, a loss of its tax exempt status would make it more difficult to obtain bond insurance. It is by no means certain that the IRS will revoke Wuesthoff's tax exempt status as explained above. When a charitable organization continues to fulfill its charitable obligations, "the IRS has, in practice, not revoked [its] tax- exempt status but tried to exact some other type of penalty." (Tr. 3600). Furthermore, when an offending organization has removed from authority the individuals responsible for the violations, the IRS considers such action to mitigate the penalty it imposes. At bottom, predicting the action of the IRS is speculative. If the IRS does revoke Wuesthoff's tax exempt status, Wuesthoff has enough cash assets on hand to build the proposed facility without resort to financing. If it comes to that, however, Wuesthoff's decision to carry the costs of construction and getting the facility off the ground in the first few years of operation without debt financing has implications for the project's long-term financial feasibility. b. Long-term financial feasibility. Historically, AHCA has defined long-term financial feasibility as at least breaking even, if not making a profit, by the end of the second year of operation. Among other matters Wuesthoff must prove in order to satisfy the test employed by AHCA historically, it must demonstrate that "projected revenues can be attained in light of the projected utilization of the proposed service and average length of stay." OR-1, p. 18. The processes used by Wuesthoff's expert to conclude that the project is financially feasible were conservative. But the processes contained flaws. Wuesthoff, for example, projects that it will have a volume of 8,327 patient days at its South Brevard campus in year one of operation and 11,224 patient days in year two. For the same time periods, it projects volumes of 50,000 patient days at its Rockledge facility for both year one and year two of operation, the same volume it projects at its Rockledge facility for the 12-month period during which the new facility will be built. The projections are not reasonable. Building the new hospital will not increase the demand for hospital services in Brevard County. Rather, patients will be reallocated. The proposed facility will receive patients who otherwise would be hospitalized at Holmes Regional or the Wuesthoff Rockledge campus. It is not reasonable, therefore, for Wuesthoff to project that its patient days at the Rockledge facility will remain the same in years one and two of operation of the new facility as during the year's period of construction. The Agency concurred with Holmes Regional's expert that Wuesthoff's utilization projections were overstated but did not see the overstatement as a problem because "while the applicant may not fully attain what is projected within the application . . . [it] will attain a level which will be successful, especially for a provider that is financially stable at this point in time and has the resources to carry out this project." (Tr. 3474). There are other flaws. Wuesthoff assumed that for the Rockledge facility pro forma all payors' reimbursement increased 4% a year for years one and two of operation resulting in a net revenue increase in excess of 9% for the two-year period. Managed care companies are typically not allowing a 4% per year increase to providers. Medicare reimbursement (the largest single payor source) was not likely to increase 4% per year prior to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (see finding of fact no. 86, below). Medicare is the largest payor source currently at Wuesthoff, accounting for in excess of 50% of operating revenues. It is also the largest payor source projected for the proposed project. In the wake of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Medicare margins have declined and are expected to continue to decline. Wuesthoff's Medicare revenue in year one of operation were overstated by 4.3% and in year two by 5.7%. Wuesthoff's expert did not assess the impact of the Balanced Budget Act on the Wuesthoff projections at the time they were made since they were made before the effective date of the Act. But he had not assessed the impact of the Act on the pro forma prepared for the new facility as of March 1999, after effects of the Act's impact were observable. Presumably, no such impact analysis was undertaken because Wuesthoff is a hospital that takes action to contain costs, a method for reducing the negative impact of the Act on a hospital's revenue. Other assumptions that underlie projections by Wuesthoff in the application are also not reasonable. Wuesthoff assumed that Medicare HMO would generate higher charges than traditional Medicare, but have a length of stay almost half the time such that the net reimbursement per case would be identical. On a per day basis, Weusthoff assumed that the Medicare and Medicaid HMO patient will generate a greater per diem reimbursement than a traditional Medicare and Medicaid patient, respectively. This is not a reasonable assumption. The assumption that commercial insurance remains a significant payor at the South Brevard campus is critical to the financial viability of the project. If the pro forma had shown a more reasonable managed care percentage and less commercial insurance in the payor mix, net revenue would decrease by approximately $280,000 in year two. The projected costs of operation at the South Brevard campus are unrealistically low because the projected salary expenses have been understated. The nursing staff will comprise almost one-third of the total hospital FTEs for years one and two at the South Brevard campus. There currently exists a nursing shortage such that hospitals in Brevard County are having to pay a several thousand dollar signing bonus when hiring nursing staff. Projected nursing salaries for the first and second year of operation were only minimally higher above what Wuesthoff was paying its nursing staff three years earlier. The Needs and Circumstances of those Entities which Provide a Substantial Portion of their Services or Resources or Both, to Individuals not Residing in the District: Section 409.035(1)(k), F.S. Wuesthoff's application does not address providing a substantial portion of its services or resources to individuals not residing in the District. The Probable Impact of the Proposed Project on the Costs of Providing Health Services Proposed by the Applicants, Including the Effect on Competition: Section 408.035(1)(l), F.S. Brevard County's Unusual Shape Brevard County is relatively narrow from East to West and extremely long from North to South, stretching 72 miles from its northern border to its southern one. Because of its unusual geographic shape, the county is easily divisible into three areas, north, central and south. North Brevard County's population was approximately 68,000 in 1998. Central Brevard County's population was approximately 168,000 and South Brevard County's was approximately 234,700. Since 1970, the share of total county growth has consistently been lowest in North Brevard County, peaking at 13% in 1990, with a projected share of total county growth in 2003 at 10.4%. Next in order, Central Brevard County's share of growth since 1970 has been on the rise but has remained substantially lower than South Brevard County's. Its share of growth in 2003 is expected to be about 38.8%. The County's "growth has been predominantly in [S]outh Brevard." (Tr. 375). In 1971, its share of total county growth was 71.1%. Although "the share of growth in [S]outh Brevard has declined over time . . . it is still about 50%." (Id.) In 2003, South Brevard County's share of total growth is projected to be 51.2%. Consistent with its higher share in total county growth, more than half of Brevard County housing starts have within recent years occurred in South Brevard County and more than half of Brevard County employers and employees are located in South Brevard County. South Brevard, for some time, has been the most populated of the county's three areas. It will continue to be the most heavily populated area for a considerable time in the future. North Brevard has one hospital: Parrish Medical Center. Central Brevard has two hospitals: Wuesthoff and Cape Canaveral Hospital. The two are operated by different hospital systems; Wuesthoff by the Wuesthoff Health System and Cape Canaveral by Health First. South Brevard has two hospital facilities: Holmes Regional Medical Center and Palm Bay Community Hospital. Unlike the situation in Central Brevard the two South Brevard facilities operate under a single hospital license and are part of one system: Health First. Markets, Monopolies, and the Exercise of Monopoly Power A great deal of evidence was introduced by both Wuesthoff and Holmes about whether or not South Brevard County, by itself, constitutes a market for purposes of economic analysis and, if so, whether Health First through its operation of the two South Brevard hospitals has a monopoly on hospital services within the market. Further evidence was introduced about whether Health First, in fact, exercises monopoly power. Wuesthoff posits that South Brevard County, in and of itself, is an economic market for purposes of economic analysis. While there was evidence that indicated that South Brevard County is a market for purposes of economic analysis, none of the experts who testified could ever recall a proceeding in which they had been involved in which an area smaller than a county had ever been found to constitute a market. Wuesthoff's approach, moreover, is problematic in a Certificate of Need proceeding (as distinguished from other types of proceedings that typically employ economic analysis, such as anti-trust proceedings.) Brevard County is one part of AHCA District VII, a district established by the Legislature for health planning purposes. The district is divided into subdistricts. Subdistrict 1 is composed of Brevard County, nothing more and nothing less. But the subdistricts are not further divided for health planning purposes. There is no question (nor any argument from Wuesthoff otherwise) that Health First does not have a monopoly on hospital services over the entire subdistrict, let alone the district. Assuming for the sake of argument that South Brevard County is a market for purposes of this proceeding and that Health First has a monopoly over hospital services in that market, Health First has not exercised its monopoly power as would typically be expected on the basis of net price. First of all, while one might expect that an entity with monopoly power would exercise it, that expectation cannot be assumed in the case of not-for-profit hospitals, such as Holmes Regional. The not-for-profit hospital "can't act like a profit- maximizing organization because of the way it is structured." (Tr. 2958). More importantly, "the economic hallmark of the exercise of monopoly power is a price above the competitive level, one that permits the earning of an above-competitive profit rate." (Tr. 2946). Holmes Regional's average net prices are 90.8% of what would be expected. In contrast, Wuesthoff's are 115.1% of what would be expected. Neither of these is "extraordinarily far from what you would expect." (Tr. 2971). In the final analysis, pricing data with regard to both list prices and net prices, no matter the payor source, does not indicate "the systematic exercise of monopoly power by Holmes . . ." (Tr. 2973), in "[S]outh Brevard County." (Tr. 2975). It is clear, however, that residents of South Brevard do not have convenient access to Brevard County hospitals other than the two Health First hospitals in South Brevard, Holmes Regional and Palm Bay Medical Center. The other Brevard County hospitals are either too far away in distance or require too much travel time to reach by automobile for most of the residents of South Brevard. Consistent with this convenience factor, 82% of the South Brevard County residents discharged from hospitals in the first six months of 1998 were discharged from Holmes Regional and Palm Bay Community. Of the remaining South Brevard County residents discharged from hospitals, the highest percentage (6%) of patients were discharged from Sebastian River Medical Center. Sebastian River, while close to some South Brevard County residents, does not provide a high enough level of services in many cases to be a reasonable substitute for Holmes Regional. Even if it is convenient to use hospital services that are close by, a patient will chose a more inconvenient hospital if the nearby hospital does not provide services of reasonable quality at reasonable prices. The two Health First hospitals provide services of reasonable quality at reasonable prices. Nonetheless, the establishment of Wuesthoff's proposed hospital would substantially increase the accessibility of South Brevard County residents to a non-Health First facility. The presence of Wuesthoff's proposed hospital in South Brevard County would offer residents of South Brevard more of a meaningful choice. In essence, granting Wuesthoff's application would produce a more competitive environment for the hospital services to be offered by Wuesthoff in South Brevard County, whether South Brevard County constitutes a market or not. Wuesthoff presents a greater question for resolution in this proceeding than whether granting the application would simply provide more competition. Even though Holmes Regional's net pricing in general does not indicate that it is exercising monopoly power in South Brevard County, is there, nonetheless, a need for a more competitive environment for hospital services in South Brevard County? The answer to that question is "yes" when one considers competition from the perspective of managed care payors. Need for Competition for Hospital Services in South Brevard County. In general, competition enhances the quality of health care services even when services being provided are of high quality. Competition also provides an incentive for hospitals, including non-profit hospitals to serve patients more efficiently. Competition lowers the costs consumers pay for hospital services. When managed care payors are able to reduce their payments to hospitals, they are able to lower the premiums paid by the "end purchaser." (Tr. 609). If the end purchaser is an employer, the "employer then makes [its] business decision internally as to how much of that cost is passed along to the individual employee." (Id.) This effect of competition is the basis for a number of managed care contractors and employers' vigorous support of Wuesthoff's application, the success of which will create competition in South Brevard County. Wuesthoff's proposed hospital will spur competition which will benefit consumers by lowering Holmes Regional's prices. Managed care helps contain costs and injects price sensitivity into the market. At the same time, higher levels of hospital concentration are associated with lower levels of discounting to managed care companies. Managed care penetration has been increasing in Brevard County. In South Brevard County, managed care penetration has increased but mainly due to increase in enrollment in HFHP, Health First's managed care plan. Managed care penetration in South Brevard County achieved by HFHP "in itself is not the issue." (HRMC No. 75, p. 32.) With only one active HMO in South Brevard County, there is no incentive to achieve better rates for the ultimate consumers especially if the main HMO is part of the same organization as the hospital as in this case. "[I]f you have several large commercial plans . . . they will be able to get better rates from Holmes Regional than if you only have one." (Id., p. 32-33). Commercial HMO inability to contract with HRMC was considered by the agency as the most important factor in approving Wuesthoff's application. Health maintenance organizations, other than HFHP, do not have meaningful competitive ability to compete with HFHP in South Brevard County. In recognition of their inability to use Central Brevard County hospitals or Sebastian River Medical Center as substitutes, and to avoid losses caused by the lack of hospital competition in South Brevard County, Aetna and United, two large managed care payors in Brevard County, have embarked on an exit strategy with regard to South Brevard County. It is difficult for managed care payors to steer south Brevard residents to central Brevard hospitals. Patients are generally unwilling to change physicians when it becomes necessary to enter a hospital. Discharge data demonstrates the lack of overlap in physician privileges between South and Central Brevard. The Central Florida Health Care Coalition, an organization comprised of businesses and formed to address health care issues which includes the largest of Brevard County employers, supports Wuesthoff's application because of the competition it will create and a number of consumers expressed support for the Wuesthoff application based on the need for competition in South Brevard County. In contrast, not a single employer, large or small, testified in support of opposition to the application. Wuesthoff's new hospital would provide an alternative for managed care payors to negotiate hospital prices in South Brevard County. More favorable hospital prices in managed care contracts, in turn, would lead to managed care premiums that would be lower for managed care customers. Lower health care premiums enable larger numbers of consumers to purchase health care coverage, thereby reducing the number of persons who have no source of payments for health care services. The ability of managed care plans to negotiate hospital prices is dependent upon ability to engage in selective contracting, the ability of a managed care plan to refuse to include a hospital in its network of providers. Selective contracting induces hospitals to offer discounted prices to assure participation in a managed care plan's network of hospitals in order to avoid losing the managed care plan's business to other competitive hospitals. Selective contracting can only be an effective strategy if managed care contractors have meaningful choices among hospital providers. In Brevard County, only in the central area do managed care plans have more than one hospital system from which to choose meaningfully and only in Central Brevard County has there been any real competition among hospitals for managed care contracts. Holmes Regional does not face the threat of a loss of business if it refuses to contract with any one managed care plan because South Brevard residents for the most part will not seek hospital services outside South Brevard County. Without the threat of a loss of business, Holmes Regional has little, if any, incentive to offer reduced prices to managed care plans. The lack of incentive for Holmes Regional to reduce prices to managed care plans was demonstrated by several analyses, including one showing that from 1995 through 1998, net prices paid by all managed care contractors to Holmes Regional were on average 32% higher per year than those paid to Wuesthoff, which has competition from another hospital in Central Brevard County Apart from pricing analyses, the lack of competition in the managed care arena for Holmes Regional was demonstrated by its ability to resist entry into any per diem managed care contracts despite efforts by some managed care contractors to negotiate such agreements with Holmes Regional. Per diem contracts are a favored from of contracting by managed care payors because they tend to enable managed care payors to predict the level of hospital payment to which they will be exposed. Such contracts are commonly found where there is competition among hospitals. In contrast, as is to be expected of a hospital in a competitive environment, most of Wuesthoff's contract with managed care payors are per diem contracts. The Applicant's Past and Proposed Provision of Health Care Services to Medicaid Patients and the Medically Indigent: Section 408.035(1)(n), F.S. Wuesthoff has "a history of providing care to the medically indigent population." (Tr. 1244). Its commitment to continue to provide such care at the proposed facility has been discussed. Whether Less Costly, More Efficient, or More Appropriate Alternatives to the Proposed Inpatient Services are Available: Section 408.035(2)(a), F.S. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that denial of the application is less costly and more efficient. The new facility will cost $38 million to build. At the same time, existing providers are operating efficiently and have unused capacity. In fact, there is insufficient utilization of the inpatient acute care services in existence in Brevard County. The subdistrict occupancy rate is "about 54% . . .[with] at least [hundreds of] beds that are unoccupied at any point in time with the county." (Tr. 3385). Whether the alternative of denying the application is more appropriate in light of the cost of the project and efficiency considerations turns on the weight to be given Wuesthoff's case for the need for competition in the managed care arena in South Brevard County. Whether the Existing Facilities Providing Similar Inpatient Services are being Used in an Appropriate and Efficient Manner: Section 408.035(2)(b), F.S. Existing facilities are being used in an efficient manner. Whether the status quo is appropriate, again, turns on the weight to be given Wuesthoff's case for the need for competition. That Patients Will Experience Serious Problems in Obtaining Inpatient Care of the Type Proposed in the Absence of the Proposed New Service: Section 408.035(2)(d), F.S. There was no evidence that patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed by Wuesthoff for its South Brevard County if the application is not granted. Rule Criteria Rule 59C-1.030, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth "health care access criteria . . . [i]n addition to criteria set forth in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes . . .". Among the criteria are [t]he contribution of the proposed service in meeting the health needs of members of such medically underserved groups, particularly those needs identified in the . . . State Health Plan as deserving of priority." The first State Health Plan preference favors an applicant that provides a disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care patient days in relation to other hospitals within the subdistrict. Wuesthoff has provided its fair share of Medicaid and charity care patient days in the past and proposes to continue to do so at the new facility if approved. But Wuesthoff is not a disproportionate share provider. As to the second preference which considers the current and projected indigent inpatient case load, the proposed facility size, and the case and service mix, Wuesthoff's application partially complies with preference in that it proposes to provide indigent care. But, Medicaid and indigent members of the population were not shown to have been denied access to hospital services in Brevard County. Approval of the facility, moreover, will not improve access or increase the number of beds since approval will result in a net loss of 50 beds in the county. The fourth preference favors an applicant with a record of accepting indigent patients for emergency care. Wuesthoff meets the preference. The fifth preference favors applicants for a type of hospital project if the facility is verified as a trauma center. Holmes Regional will remain the only verified trauma center in the subdistrict, even if the application is approved. The sixth preference favors applicants who document that they provide a full range of emergency services. The new facility will provide emergency services but not a full range unless the emergency services provided by Wuesthoff at its Rockledge campus are considered. Because the 50-bed hospital will not provide tertiary services nor high-level trauma services, "[t]he complicated or trauma cases will . . . go to Holmes Regional Medical Center" (Tr. 3384), the hospital campus closest to the new facility. The seventh preference favors applicants not fined by AHCA for any violation of emergency service statutes. Wuesthoff meets this preference. The eighth preference favors applicants who demonstrate that the subdistrict occupancy rate is at least 75%, or in the case of exiting facilities, where the occupancy rate for the most recent 12 months is at least 85%. Wuesthoff did not show that it meets this preference. The ninth preference of the State Health Plan favors an applicant with a history of providing a disproportionate share of the subdistrict's acute care and Medicaid patient days and is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider. Wuesthoff does not meet this preference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Inc.'s application for CON 8740. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 12th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Terry Rigsby, Esquire Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Boone & Hines, P.A. Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284-1596 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Smith & Ashburn, P.A. 1330 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact By application dated September 28, 1988 respondent/applicant, Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center, Inc. (SFRMC), filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), seeking the issuance of a certificate of need (CON) authorizing the expenditure of approximately $19.98 million to construct a new three story clinical and ancillary services building at its facility located in Fort Myers, Florida. After the application was filed, and certain additional information was provided by SFRMC, HRS issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter on January 13, 1989 advising that it intended to issue SFRMC a CON. On February 3, 1989, HRS published in the Florida Administrative Weekly a notice of its intent to grant the CON. After learning of this action, petitioner, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee), filed a petition for formal administrative hearing seeking to contest the proposed agency action. That prompted this proceeding. The state agency action report, which is a part of this record, reflects that the applicant proposes to: ... add 4 additional operating rooms to the existing 11; 16 new cardiac surgery recovery beds to the existing 16; and 8 new CCU beds to the existing 8 (by conversion of med/surg beds) in a new three story building that will be a replacement/expansion to the existing facility. The requested project will not constitute an increase in the licensed beds of the applicant's facility. The proposal does not request approval of any new services or change in the total number of beds that are licensed for the applicant's facility, but it does include redesignation of 8 existing medical/surgical beds to add to the 8 additional CCU beds requested. New space for Central Supply Services, as well (as) new and additional administrative, staff support areas, land public areas have been planned. (Emphasis added) These changes were sought by SFRMC to meet "(t)he need and demand for Cardiac services (that have) increased dramatically over the last seven years due to the community's growth, technological advancements and changing clinical practices." According to the allegations in the petition, Lee operates a health care facility in Fort Myers, Florida, which is in the same health planning district as SFRMC. The petition goes on to aver that Lee provides a wide range of medical services and programs, including cardiac surgery and recovery, cardiac catheterization laboratories, CCU, and non-invasive diagnostic cardiology services as proposed in SFRMC's application. The petition alleges further that, due to the sheer size of the project and the "substantial change" in services that will occur, Lee is entitled to a hearing. Based upon these considerations, Lee alleges that its open heart surgery program will be substantially affected if the CON is issued. HRS has authorized Lee to operate an open heart surgery program. However, by stipulation dated March 28, 1988 in DOAH Case No. 87-4755, it has agreed not to begin this program until at least April 1, 1990. If approved, SFRMC's building addition would not be completed until May 1, 1990, or one month after Lee's program begins. The application reflects that SFRMC will increase its total square footage by 25%, operating room capacity by 57%, and SICU capacity by 64%. In all, the project will add approximately 68,000 square feet to the facility complex. In addition, operating expenses associated with the project will total in excess of $28 million per year. Finally, utilization of existing facilities will be enhanced by the new addition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center's motion to dismiss the petition of Lee Memorial Hospital be GRANTED and that Lee's petition for formal administrative hearing be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1989.
The Issue Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Long Term Care Hospitals Of the four classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals," includes: General acute care hospitals with an average length of stay of 25 days or less for all beds; Long term care hospitals, which meet the provisions of subsection 59A-3.065(27), F.A.C.; and, Rural hospitals designated under Section 395, Part III, F.S. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.252(1)(a). This proceeding concerns CON applications for the second of Florida's Class I or general hospitals: LTCHs. A critically ill patient may be admitted and treated in a general acute care hospital, but, if the patient cannot be stabilized or discharged to a lower level of care on the continuum of care within a relatively short time, the patient may be discharged to an LTCH. An LTCH patient is almost always "critically catastrophically ill or ha[s] been." (Tr. 23). Typically, an LTCH patient is medically unstable, requires extensive nursing care with physician oversight, and often requires extensive technological support. The LTCH patient usually fits into one or more of four categories. One category is patients in need of pulmonary/respiratory services. Usually ventilator dependent, these types of LTCH patients have other needs as well that requires "complex comprehensive ventilator weaning in addition to meeting ... other needs." (Tr. 26). A second category is patients in need of wound care whose wound is life-threatening. Frequently compromised by inadequate nutrition, these types of LTCH patients are often diabetic. There are a number of typical factors that may account for the seriousness of the wound patient's condition. The job of the staff at the LTCH in such a case is to attend to the wound and all the other medical problems of the patient that have extended the time required for care of the wound. A third category is patients with some sort of neuro-trauma. These patients may have had a stroke and are often elderly; if younger, they may be victims of a car accident or some other serious trauma. They typically have multiple body systems that require medical treatment, broken bones and a closed head injury for example, that have made them "very sick and complex." (Tr. 27). The fourth category is referred to by the broad nomenclature of "medically complex" although it is a subset of the population of LTCH patients all of whom are medically complex. The condition of the patients in this fourth category involves two or more body systems. The patients usually present at the LTCH with "renal failure ... [and] with another medical condition ... that requires a ventilator ..." Id. In short, LTCHs provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions that usually require care for a relatively extended period of time. To meet the definition of an LTCH a facility must have an average length of inpatient stay ("ALOS") greater than 25 days for all hospital beds. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065(34). The staffs at general acute care hospitals and LTCHs have different orientations. With a staff oriented toward a patient population with a much shorter ALOS, the general acute care hospital setting may not be appropriate for a patient who qualifies for LTCH services. The staff at a general acute care hospital frequently judges success by a patient getting well in a relatively short time. It is often difficult for general acute care hospital staff to sustain the interest and effort necessary to serve the LTCH patient well precisely because of the staff's expectation that the patient will improve is not met in a timely fashion. As time goes by, that expectation continues to be frustrated, a discouragement to staff. The LTCH is unlike other specialized health care settings. The complex, medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient may be beyond the capability of the traditional comprehensive medical rehabilitation ("CMR") hospital, nursing home, skilled nursing facility ("SNF"), or, the skilled nursing unit ("SNU"). CMR units and hospitals are rarely, if ever, appropriate for the LTCH patient. Almost invariably, LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three (3) hours of therapy per day associated with CMR. The primary focus of LTCHs, moreover, is to provide continued acute medical treatment to the patient that may not yet be stable, with the ultimate goal of getting the patient on the road to recovery. In comparison, the CMR hospital treats medically stable patients consistent with its primary focus of restoring functional capabilities, a more advanced step in the continuum of care. Services provided in LTCHs are distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Most nursing and clinical personnel in SNFs and SNUs are not experienced with the unique psychosocial needs of long-term acute care patients and their families. An LTCH is distinguished within the healthcare continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Medicare has long recognized LTCHs as a distinct level of care within the health care continuum. The federal government's prospective payment system ("PPS") now treats the LTCH level of service as distinct with its "own DRG system and ... [its] own case rate reimbursement." (Tr. 108). Under the LTCH PPS, each patient is assigned an LTC- DRG (different than the DRG under the general hospital DRG system) with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based on the patient diagnosis and acuity. The Parties The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON Program and licensing LTCHs and other hospital facilities pursuant to the authority of Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. Select-Palm Beach is the applicant for a free-standing 60-bed LTCH in "east Central Palm Beach County," Select Ex. 1, stamped page 12, near JFK Medical Center in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9661, was denied by the Agency. Select-Palm Beach is a wholly owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation, which provides long term acute care services at 83 LTCHs in 24 states, four of which are freestanding hospitals. The other 79 are each "hospitals-in-a- hospital" ("HIH" or "LTCH HIH"). Kindred is the applicant for a 70-bed LTCH to be located in the north central portion of Palm Beach County in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9662, was denied by the Agency. Kindred is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 73 LTCHs, 59 of which are freestanding, according to the testimony of Mr. Novak. See Tr. 56-57. Kindred Healthcare has been operating LTCHs since 1985 and has operated them in Florida for more than 15 years. At the time of the submission of Kindred's application, Kindred Healthcare's six LTCHs in Florida were Kindred-North Florida, a 60-bed LTCH in Pinellas County, AHCA District 5; Kindred-Central Tampa, with 102 beds, and Kindred-Bay Area- Tampa, with 73 beds, both in Hillsborough County, in AHCA District 6; Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale with 64 beds and Kindred- Hollywood with 124 beds, both in Broward County, ACHA District 10; and Kindred-Coral Gables, with 53 beds, in Dade County, AHCA District 11. The Applications and AHCA's Review The applications were submitted in the first application cycle of 2003. Select-Palm Beach's application is CON No. 9661; Kindred's is CON No. 9662. Select-Palm Beach estimates its total project costs to be $12,856,139. Select-Palm Beach has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH, but did include in its application a map showing three priority site locations, with its preferred site, designated "Site 1," located near JFK Medical Center. At $12,937,419, Kindred's estimate of its project cost is slightly more than Select-Palm Beach's. The exact site of Kindred's proposed LTCH had not been determined at the time of hearing. Kindred's preference, however, is to locate in the West Palm Beach area in the general vicinity of St. Mary's Hospital, in the northern portion of Palm Beach County along the I-95 corridor. This is approximately 15 to 20 miles north of Select's preferred location for its LTCH. There is no LTCH in the five-county service area that comprises District 9: Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. There are two LTCHs in adjacent District 10 (to the south). They have a total of 188 beds and an average occupancy of 80 percent. The Agency views LTCH care as a district-wide service primarily for Medicare patients. At the time of the filing of the applications, the population in District 9 was over 1.6 million, including about 400,000 in the age cohort 65 and over. About 70 percent of the District 9 population lives in Palm Beach County. More than 70 percent of the District's general acute care hospitals are located in that county. Kindred's preferred location for its LTCH is approximately 40 to 50 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH; Select-Palm Beach is approximately 25 to 35 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH. The locations of Select Palm-Beach's and Kindred's proposed LTCHs are complementary. The SAAR Following its review of the two applications, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). Section G., of the report, entitled "RECOMMENDATION," states: "Deny Con #9661 and CON #9662." Agency Ex. 2, p. 43. On June 11, 2003, the report was signed by Karen Rivera, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Certificate of Need, and Mr. Gregg as the Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. It contained a section entitled "Authorization for Agency Action" that states, "[a]uthorized representatives of the Agency for Health Care Administration adopted the recommendations contained herein and released the State Agency Action Report." Agency Ex. 2, p. 44. The adoption of the recommendations is the functional equivalent of preliminary denial of the applications. In Section F. of the SAAR under the heading of "Need," (Agency Ex. 2, p. 40), the Agency explained its primary bases for denial; it concluded that the applicants had not shown need for an LTCH in AHCA District 9. The discussions for the two, although not precisely identical, are quite similar: Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc.(CON #9661): The applicant's two methodological approaches to demonstrate need are not supported by any specific discharge studies or other data, including DRG admission criteria from area hospitals regarding potential need. The applicant also failed to provide any supporting documentation from area physicians or other providers regarding potential referrals. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. (CON #9662): The various methodological approaches presented are not supported by any specific DRG admission criteria from area hospitals suggesting potential need. The applicant provided numerous letters of support for the project from area hospitals, physicians and case managers. However, the number of potential referrals of patients needing LTCH services was not quantified. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Id. At hearing, the Agency's witness professed no disagreement with the SAAR and continued to maintain the same bases contained in the SAAR for the denials of the two applications The SAAR took no issue with either applicant's ability to provide quality care. It concluded that funding for each applicant was likely to be available and that each project appeared to be financially feasible once operating. The SAAR further stated that there were no major architectural concerns regarding Kindred's proposed facility design, but noted reservations regarding the need for further study and revision of Select Palm-Beach's proposed surgery/procedure wing, as well as cost uncertainties for Select Palm Beach because of such potential revisions. By the time of final hearing, however, the parties had stipulated to the reasonableness of each applicant's proposed costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated to the satisfaction of a number of the statutory CON criteria by the two applicants. The parties agreed that the applications complied with the content and review process requirements of sections 408.037 and 409.039, Florida Statutes, with one exception. Select reserved the issue of the lack of a Year 2 of Schedule 6, (Staffing) in Kindred's application. The form of Schedule 6 provided by AHCA to Kindred (unlike other schedules of the application) does not clearly indicate that a second year of staffing data must be provided. The remainder of the criteria stipulated and the positions of the parties as articulated in testimony at hearing and in the proposed orders that were submitted leave need as the sole issue of consequence with one exception: whether Kindred has demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the long term. Kindred's Long Term Financial Feasibility Select-Palm Beach contends that Kindred's project is not financially feasible in the long term for two reasons. They relate to Kindred's application and are stated in Select Palm Beach's proposed order: Kindred understated property taxes[;] Kindred completely fails to include in its expenses on Schedule 8, patient medical assistance trust fund (PMATF) taxes [citation omitted]. Proposed Recommended Order of Select-Palm Beach, Inc., p. 32, Finding of Fact 97. Raised after the proceeding began at DOAH by Select- Palm Beach, these two issues were not considered by AHCA when it conducted its review of Kindred's application because the issues were not apparent from the face of the application. AHCA's Review of Kindred's Application Kindred emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on April 20, 2001, under a plan of reorganization. With respect to the events that led to the bankruptcy proceeding and the need to review prior financial statements, AHCA made the following finding in the SAAR: Under the plan [of reorganization], the applicant [Kindred] adopted the fresh start accounting provision of SOP 90-7. Under fresh start accounting, a new reporting entity is created and the recorded amounts of assets and liabilities are adjusted to reflect their estimated fair values. Accordingly, the prior period financial statements are not comparable to the current period statements and will not be considered in this analysis. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30. The financial statements provided by Kindred as part of its application show that Kindred Healthcare, Kindred's parent, is a financially strong company. The information contained in Kindred's CON application filed in 2003 included Kindred Healthcare's financial statements from the preceding calendar year. Kindred Healthcare's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2002, showed "Income from Operations" to be more than $33 million, and net cash provided by operating activities (cash flow) of over $248 million for the period. Its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2002, showed cash and cash equivalents of over $244 million and total assets of over $1.6 billion. In light of the information contained in Kindred's CON application, the SAAR concluded with regard to short term financial feasibility: Based on the audited financial statements of the applicant, cash on hand and cash flows, if they continue at the current level, would be sufficient to fund this project as proposed. Funding for all capital projects, with the support of its parent, is likely to be available as needed. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30 (emphasis supplied). The SAAR recognized that Kindred projected a "year two operating loss for the hospital of $287,215." Agency Ex. 2, p. Nonetheless, the SAAR concludes on the issue of financial feasibility, "[w]ith continued operational support from the parent company, this project [Kindred's] is considered financially feasible." Id. The Agency did not have the information, however, at the time it reviewed Kindred's application that Kindred understated property taxes and omitted the Public Medicaid Trust Fund and Medical Assistance Trust Fund ("PMATF") "provider tax" of 1.5 percent that would be imposed on Kindred's anticipated revenues of $11,635,919 as contended by Select-Palm Beach. Consistent with Select Palm-Beach's general contentions about property taxes and PMATF taxes, "Kindred acknowledges that it likely understated taxes to be incurred in the operation of its facility." Kindred's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 50, p. 19. The parties agree, moreover, that the omitted PMATF tax is reasonably projected to be $175,000. They do not agree, however, as to the impact of the PMATF tax on year two operating loss. The difference between the two (approximately $43,000) is attributable to a corporate income tax benefit deduction claimed by Kindred so that the combination of the application's projected loss, the omitted PMATF tax, and the deduction yields a year two operating loss of approximately $419,000. Without taking into consideration the income tax benefit, Select-Palm Beach contends that adding in the PMATF tax produces a loss of $462,000. Kindred and Select-Palm Beach also disagree over the projection of property taxes by approximately $50,000. Kindred projects that the property taxes in year two of operation will be approximately $225,000 instead of the $49,400 listed in the application. Select-Palm Beach projects that they will be $50,000 higher at approximately $275,000. Whether Kindred's or Select-Palm Beach's figures are right, Kindred makes two points. First, if year two revenues and expenses, adjusted for underestimated and omitted taxes, are examined on a quarterly basis, the fourth quarter of year two has a better bottom line than the earlier quarters. Not only will the fourth quarter bottom line be better, but, using Kindred's figures, the fourth quarter of year two of operations is profitable. Second, and most importantly given the Agency's willingness to credit Kindred with financial support from its parent, Kindred's application included in its application an interest figure of $1.2 million for year one of operation and $1.03 million for year two. Kindred claims in its proposed recommended order that "[i]n reality ... this project will incur no interest expense as Kindred intends to fund the project out of cash on hand, or operating capital, and would not have to borrow money to construct the project." Id., at paragraph 54, p. 20. Through the testimony of John Grant, Director of Planning and Development for Kindred's parent, Kindred Healthcare, Kindred indicated at hearing that its parent might, indeed, fund the project: A ... Kindred [Healthcare] would likely fund this project out of operating capital. Like I said, in the first nine months of this year Kindred had operating cash flow of approximately $180 million. So it's not as if we would have to actually borrow money to complete a project like this. Q And what was the interest expense that you had budgeted in Year Two for this facility? A $1,032,000. Q ... so is it your statement then that this facility would not owe any interest back to the parent company? A That's correct. Tr. 221-222 (emphasis supplied). If the "financing interest" expense is excluded from Kindred's statement of projected expenses in Schedule 8 of the CON application, using Kindred's revised projections, the project shows a profit of approximately $612,0002 for the second year of operation. If Select-Palm Beach's figures and bottom line loss excludes the "finances interest" expense, the elimination of the expense yields of profit for year two of operations in excess of $500,000. If the support of Kindred's parent is considered as the Agency has signaled its willingness to do and provided that the project is, in fact, funded by Kindred Healthcare rather than financed through some other means that would cause Kindred to incur interest expense, Kindred's project is financially feasible in the long term. With the exception of the issue regarding Kindred's long term financial feasibility, as stated above, taken together, the stipulation and agreements of the parties, the Agency's preliminary review contained in the SAAR, and the evidence at hearing, all distill the issues in this case to one overarching issue left to be resolved by this Recommended Order: need for long term care hospital beds in District 9. Need for the Proposals From AHCA's perspective prior to the hearing, the only issue in dispute with respect to the two applications is need. This point was made clear by Mr. Gregg's testimony at hearing in answer to a question posed by counsel for Select-Palm Beach: Q. ... Assuming there was sufficient need for 130 beds in the district is there any reason why both applicants shouldn't be approved in this case, assuming that need? A. No. (Tr. 398). Both applicants contend that the application each submitted is superior to the other. Neither, however, at this point in the proceeding, has any objection to approval of the other application provided its own application is approved. Consistent with its position that both applications may be approved, Select-Palm Beach presented testimony through its health care planner Patricia Greenberg3 that there was need in District 9 for both applicants' projects. Her testimony, moreover, rehabilitated the single Kindred methodology of three that yielded numeric need less than the 130 beds proposed by both applications: Q ... you do believe that there is a need for both in the district. A I believe there's a need for two facilities in the district. Q It could support two facilities? A Oh, absolutely. Q And the disagreement primarily relates to the conservative approach of Kindred in terms of not factoring in out-migration and the narrowing the DRG categories? A Correct. ... Kindred actually had three models. Two of them support both facilities, but it's the GMLOS model that I typically rely on, and it didn't on the surface support both facilities. That's why I reconciled the two, and I believe that's the difference, is just the 50 DRGs and not including the out-migration. That would boost their need above the 130, and two facilities would give people alternatives, it would foster competition, and it would really improve access in that market. Tr. 150-51. Need for the applications, therefore, is the paramount issue in this case. Since both applicants are qualified to operate an LTCH in Florida, if need is proven for the 130 beds, then with the exception of Kindred's long term financial feasibility, all parties agree that there is no further issue: both applications should be granted. No Agency Numeric Need Methodology The Agency has not established a numeric need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs. Nor does the Agency have "any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)1. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2), which governs "Fixed Need Pools" (the "Fixed Need Pools Rule") states that if "no agency policy exist" with regard to a needs assessment methodology: [T]he applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The Fixed Need Pools Rule goes on to elaborate in subparagraph (e)3 that "[t]he existence of unmet need will not be based solely on the absence of a health service, health care facility, or beds in the district, subdistrict, region or proposed service area." Population, Demographics and Dynamics The first of the four topics to be addressed when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology is "population, demographics and dynamics." The Agency has not defined service areas for LTCHs. Nonetheless, from a health planning perspective, it views LTCH services as being provided district-wide primarily for Medicare patients. Consistent with the Agency's view, Select-Palm Beach identified the entire district, that is, all of AHCA District 9, as its service area. It identified Palm Beach County, one of the five counties in AHCA District 9, as its primary service area. In identifying the service area for Select-Palm Beach, Ms. Greenberg drew data from various sources: population estimates for Palm Beach County and surrounding areas; the number of acute care hospital beds in the area; the number of LTCH beds in the area; the types of patients treated at acute care hospitals; and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. AHCA District 9 has more elderly than any other district in the State, and Palm Beach County has more than any other county except for Dade. Palm Beach County residents comprise 71% of the District 9 population. It is reasonably projected that the elderly population (the "65 and over" age cohort) in Palm Beach County is projected to grow at the rate of 8 percent by 2008. The "65 and over" age cohort is significant because the members of that cohort are most likely to utilize hospital services, including LTCH services. Its members are most likely to suffer complications from illness and surgical procedures and more likely to have co-morbidity conditions that require long- term acute care. Persons over 65 years of age comprise approximately 80 percent of the patient population of LTCH facilities. Both Select-Palm Beach and Kindred project that approximately 80 percent of their admissions will come from Medicare patients. Since 90 percent of admissions to an LTCH come from acute care facilities, most of the patient days expected at Select-Palm Beach's proposed LTCH will originate from residents in its primary service area, Palm Beach County. When looking at the migration pattern for patients at acute care facilities within Palm Beach County, the majority (90 percent) come from Palm Beach County residents. Thus, Select- Palm Beach's projected primary service area is reasonable. Just as Select-Palm Beach, Kindred proposes to serve the entire District. Kindred proposes that its facility be based in Palm Beach County because of the percentage of the district's population in the county as well as because more than 70% of the district's general acute care hospitals are in the county. Its selection of the District as its service area, consistent with the Agency's view, is reasonable. Currently there are no LTCHs in District 9. Availability, Utilization and Quality of Like Services The second topic is "availability, utilization and quality of like services." There are no "like" services available to District residents in the District. Select-Palm Beach and Kindred, therefore, contend that they meet the criteria of the second topic. There are like services in other AHCA Districts. For example, AHCA District 10 has at total of 188 beds at two Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood. The Agency, however, did not present evidence of their quality, that they were available or to what extent they are utilized by the residents of AHCA District 9. Medical Treatment Trends The third topic is medical treatment trends. Caring for patients with chronic and long term care needs is becoming increasingly more important as the population ages and as medical technology continues to emerge that prolongs life expectancies. Through treatment provided the medically complex and critically ill with state of the art mechanical ventilators, metabolic analyzers, and breathing monitors, LTCHs meet needs beyond the capability of the typical general acute care hospitals. In this way, LTCHs fill a niche in the continuum of care that addresses the needs of a small but growing patient population. Treatment for these patients in an LTCH, who otherwise would be cared for without adequate reimbursement to the general acute care hospital or moved to an alternative setting with staff and services inadequate to meet their needs, is a medical trend. Market Conditions The fourth topic to be addressed by the applicant is market conditions. The federal government's development of a distinctive prospective payment system for LTCHs (LTC-DRG), has created a market condition favorable to LTCHs. General acute care hospitals face substantial losses for the medically complex patient who uses far greater resources than expected on the basis of individual diagnoses. Medicare covers between 80 and 85 percent of LTCH patients. The remaining patients are covered by private insurance, managed care and Medicaid. LTCH programs allow for shorter lengths of stay in a general acute care facility, reduces re-admissions and provide more discharges to home. These benefits are increasingly recognized. Numeric Need Analysis Kindred presented a set of needs assessment methodologies that yielded numeric need for the beds applied for by Kindred. Select-Palm Beach did the same. Unlike Kindred, however, all of the needs assessment methodologies presented by Select-Palm Beach demonstrated numeric need in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applications. Select-Palm Beach's methodologies, overall, are superior to Kindred's. Select-Palm Beach used two sets of needs assessment methodologies and sensitivity testing of one of the sets that confirmed the methodology's reasonableness. The two sets or needs assessment methodologies are: (1) a use rate methodology and (2) length of stay methodologies. The use rate methodology yielded projected bed need for Palm Beach County alone in excess of the 130 beds proposed by the two applicants. For the year "7/05 - 6/06" the bed need is projected to be 256; for the year "7/06 - 6/07" the bed need is projected to be 261; and, for the year "7/07 - 6/08" the bed need is projected to be 266. See Select Ex. 1, Bates Stamp p. 000036 and the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 114. If the use rate analysis had been re-computed to include two districts whose data was excluded from the analysis, the bed need yielded for Palm Beach County alone was 175 beds, a numeric need still in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applicants. The use rate methodology is reasonable.4 The length of stay methodologies are also reasonable. These two methodologies also yielded numeric need for beds in excess of the 130 beds proposed. The two methodologies yielded need for 167 beds and 250 beds. Agency Denial The Agency's general concerns about LTCHs are not without basis. For many years, there were almost no LTCH CON applications filed with the Agency. A change occurred in 2002. The change in the LTCH environment in the last few years put AHCA in the position of having "to adapt to a rapidly changing situation in terms of [Agency] understanding of what has been going on in recent years with long-term care hospitals." (Tr. 358.) "... [I]n the last couple of years long-term care hospital applications have become [AHCA's] most common type of application." (Tr. 359.) At the time of the upsurge in applications, there was "virtually nothing ... in the academic literature about long- term care hospitals ... that could [provide] ... an understanding of what was going on ... [nor was there anything] in the peer reviewed literature that addressed long-term care hospitals" id., and the health care planning issues that affected them. Two MedPAC reports came out, one in 2003 and another in 2004. The 2003 report conveyed the information that the federal government was unable to identify patients appropriate for LTCH services, services that are overwhelmingly Medicare funded, because of overlap of LTCH services with other types of services. The 2004 report gave an account of the federal government decision to change its payment policy for a type of long-term care hospitals that are known as "hospitals-within- hospitals" (tr. 368) so that "hospitals within hospitals as of this past summer [2004] can now only treat 25 percent of their patients from the host hospital." Id. Both reports roused concerns for AHCA. First, if appropriate LTCH patients cannot be identified and other types of services overlap appropriately with LTCH services, AHCA cannot produce a valid needs assessment methodology. The second produces another concern. In the words of Mr. Gregg, The problem ... with oversupply of long-term care hospital beds is that it creates an incentive for providers to seek patient who are less appropriate for the service. What we know now is that only the sickest patient ... with the most severe conditions are truly appropriate for long-term care hospital placement. * * * ... [T]he MedPAC report most recently shows us that the greatest indicator of utilization of long-term care hospital services is the mere availability of those services. Tr. 368-369. The MedPAC reports, themselves, although marked for identification, were not admitted into evidence. Objections to their admission (in particular, Kindred's) were sustained because they had not been listed by AHCA on the stipulation required by the Pre-hearing Order of Instructions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration that: approves Select-Palm Beach's application, CON 9661; and approves Kindred's application CON 9662 with the condition that financing of the project be provided by Kindred Healthcare. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 18th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Parties FRTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation (Charter) which proposes to construct and operate a freestanding, 60 bed, 24- hour-a-day, Intensive Residential Treatment Program for children between the ages of 6 and 18 in Palm Beach County within HRS District IX, pursuant to Rule 10-28.152(8), F.A.C. and Chapter 395, F.S. Although FRTC represents it will construct its proposed facility with or without CON licensure, which it is entitled to do, given the peculiarities of this type of health care entity, it is clear that a prime motivator in FRTC's CON application is that with CON licensure, FRTC potentially will have greater access to insurance reimbursement because it may then call itself a "hospital." FRTC will seek JCAH accreditation. HRS is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications, pursuant to Chapter 10-5.011, F.A.C. and Sections 381.701-381.715, F.S. (1987). HRS preliminarily approved FRTC's application, and supported it through formal hearing and post-hearing proposals. RTCPB is an existing 40 bed residential treatment center for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18, located in Palm Beach County, on the campus of Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches. It provides services similar or identical to those services proposed to be offered by FRTC. It is JCAH accredited through an extension of Lake Hospital's accreditation and is close to JCAH accreditation in its own right. RTCPB is a subsidiary of Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA) . PIA operates two residential treatment centers in Florida. RTCPB is not CON licensed as an IRTP, under Chapters 381 and 395, F.S., but is licensed as a child care facility under Chapter 395, F.S., as a provider of services to HRS under Chapters 10M-9 and 10E-10, F.A.C. RTCPB accepts substance abusers in residency. RTCPB has also applied for CON licensure as an IRTP in a batching cycle subsequent to the present one. That application has been preliminarily denied by HRS and RTCPB is awaiting a Section 120.57(1), F.S., formal administrative hearing thereon. RTCPB now estimates its current patients' average length of stay (ALOS) as 106 days but projects a 315 day (10 1/2 months) ALOS in its subsequent CON application. RTCPB is charging $185 per day or HRS patients and $255 with $23-26 ancillaries [sic] per day for private pay patients. Like FRTC, it uses a "levels" system of behavior modification and patient control. Humana is a 250 bed JCAH accredited hospital located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Of Humana's 250 beds, 162 are traditional acute care beds and 88 are psychiatric beds. The 88 psychiatric beds are administratively divided into different units, one of which is a 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit; this unit opened January 20, 1987, and has an average length of stay of nine months. Humana's existing CONs are for short-term adult psychiatric beds and do not authorize an adolescent unit with an average length of stay of over 30 days. Ninety days is the demarcation, by rule, between short- and long-term psychiatric beds. Humana recently applied for a CON for more psychiatric beds and also applied for an IRTP CON in a subsequent batch to the present one. Humana's present 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit provides grossly similar services to those proposed to be offered by FRTC, but its emphasis is more medical-psychiatric than emotional-behavioral. Like FRTC, Humana does not accept in residency adolescents with a primary diagnosis of substance abuse. Like FRTC and RTCPB, Humana uses a "levels" system. Eighty percent of Humana's patient mix are commercial pay, and the unit is running at a 15 to 20 percent profit margin. Humana usually charges $325 per day on their adolescent unit plus ancillaries [sic] amounting to 10 percent of the patient's bill, but HRS contract patients pay only $225 per day. Humana has lost a number of adolescent unit referrals to RTCPB since RTCPB opened June 1, 1987, but the unit continues to be almost fully occupied. Humana's main referral asset, as well as the source of the confusion of referring entities, appears to be the reputation of its director, Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly previously directed a program at Lake Hospital which was identical to the program that he now directs at Humana. Lake Hospital currently has RTCPB operating under its auspices, but not Dr. Kelly. Nature of the FRTC Program FRTC's proposed program is designed to serve those persons in the designated age group who have psychiatric diagnoses of a severity requiring a long-term approach in a multidisciplinary structured living setting to facilitate recovery. It will not, however, treat adolescents with an active diagnosis of chemical dependency or substance abuse. It also only commits to 1.5 percent indigent care. The proposed FRTC program differs from an acute care setting in significant quantitative and qualitative ways, the most visible of which is that acute care psychiatric settings (either long- or short-term) are geared toward dealing with patients actively dangerous to property, themselves, or others, but patients whom it is reasonably assumed will respond primarily to physiologically-oriented physicians and registered nurses administering daily medication, treatment, and monitoring, as opposed to a long-term living arrangement emphasizing behaviorally-oriented group interaction as an alternative to parental care at home. FRTC will, however, accept patients with psychiatric diagnoses of effective disorders, depression, schizophrenia and impulse disorders and those who may be potentially harmful to themselves, others, or property for whom no other less intensive or less restrictive form of treatment would be predictably helpful. FRTC would fall on the continuum of care below an acute psychiatric facility such as Humana. Assessment of such a target group on a patient by patient basis is obviously subject to a wide variation of interpretation by qualified health care professionals, but FRTC anticipates both verifying referral diagnoses and assuring quality of care by insuring that each new patient is seen by a psychiatrist within 24 hours of admission, and by having each case reviewed by an independent utilization review committee. FRTC also plans to complete appropriate patient assessments and develop and update individual, integrated treatment programs. FRTC will provide, where appropriate, for continuity of care from previous acute care institutions through the FRTC program and out into more normal individual or family living arrangements. Parents will have to consent to their child's placement at FRTC. FRTC's program proposes an average length of stay of 365 days (one year) with a range of six months to two years. Based upon all the credible record evidence as a whole, including, but not limited to, the protestants' respective ALOS, this is a reasonable forecast despite contrary evidence as to Charter's experience at its "template" Virginia institution, Charter Colonial. FRTC's program components will include individual therapy, recreational therapy, occupational therapy, and general education. The general education component in FRTC's proposed program is more general and more open than that offered in acute care settings, such as Humana. FRTC's overall program will utilize a "levels" system of behavioral management based upon patients earning privileges, which levels system has a good patient rehabilitation and functional administrative track record in many different kinds of psychiatric health care facilities, including Humana and RTCPB. FRTC intends that each patient's program will be individualized according to age and program component directed to his/her diagnosis and each patient will receive individual, resident group, and family therapies. As to assessment, types of therapy, continuity of care, and general education provisions, FRTC's proposal is grossly consistent with that of its "template." To the extent there is evidence of inconsistencies between the two programs in the record, the FRTC proposal represents either improvements over, or refinements of, its template program which have been developed as Charter/FRTC has learned more about what actually "works" for the IRTP form of health care, or it represents changes to accommodate Florida's perception of what less restrictive but still intensive residential treatment should be, or it anticipates local community needs. Quality of Care The applicant's parent corporation is an experienced provider of many types of accredited psychiatric facilities. The type of quality assurance program proposed and the staff mix provide reasonable quality care assurances. Design, Construction, and Personnel Refinements to FRTC's original schematic take into consideration the influence that physical structure has on an Intensive Residential Treatment Program. Those refinements include modification of a multipurpose room into a half-court gymnasium, addition of a classroom, addition of a mechanical room, modification of the nursing station to decrease the amount of space, and the deletion of one seclusion room and addition of a four to six bed assessment unit. The modifications resulted in the addition of approximately 1,000 square feet to the original design. A minimum of four to six acres would be necessary to accommodate the modified design which totals approximately 32,000 square feet. Public areas, such as administration and support services, dining room, and housekeeping areas, are to the front; private areas, such as the nursing units, are to the back. The facility's middle area houses gym, classrooms, and occupational therapy areas. The location encourages residential community involvement. Each of three, 20-bed units is made up of a group of two consultation rooms, a galley, a laundry, a day room and core living space located directly across from the nursing station for maximum observation and efficiency. Each unit comprises a separate wing. Six handicapped accessible patient beds are contemplated; the building will be handicapped-accessible. The staffing projections have increased and the pattern has been minimally altered in the updates. The updated pro forma also modified the initial financial projections so as to increase salary expense and employee benefits based on this change in staffing. An increase in the total project cost impacted on depreciation, and interest expense changed with time. All these changes are reasonable and insubstantial. FRTC's design is adequate for providing a suitable environment for intensive residential treatment for children and adolescents even though it is not identical to Charter's "template" for residential treatment and even though Charter's extensive experience with acute care facilities has focused these changes in its residential treatment concepts. The parties stipulated to the adequacy of FRTC's proposed equipment list and costs. Total construction cost was demonstrated to be reasonably estimated at $2,078,000. The square footage costs of $64.86 per square foot represet an increase from the square footage costs contained in the original CON application. The original budget was updated based upon a three percent inflation factor and the addition of the approximately 1,000 square feet. The additional space is not a significant construction change. The total project costs of $4,728,000 are reasonable. The testimony of HRS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, John Griffin, who testified by deposition, (RTCPB's Exhibit 8, pp. 21-22) revealed no firm policy on what the agency, within its expertise, views as substantial and impermissible amendments to a CON application; HRS did not move at hearing to remand for further review; and the undersigned concludes that the changes in facility design, costs, and staffing do not represent significant changes which would be excludable as evidence and that they do represent permissible minor modifications and refinements of the original FRTC application. Site Availability No party contended that FRTC's application was a "site specific" application, that a residential treatment program is otherwise required to be "site specific," or that an IRTP CON is governed by a "site specific" rule or by "site specific" statutory criteria. Therefore, it was only necessary for FRTC in this noncomparative proceeding to establish that several suitable sites were available within the required geographic parameters at the financial amount allotted in FRTC's projections. FRTC did establish financially and geographically available and suitable sites through the testimony of Robert H. Ellzey, a qualified expert in commercial real estate values. The Non-Rule Need Policy There are no hospital licensed Intensive Residential Treatment Programs in Palm Beach County or in District IX. IRTPs are in a separate licensure category by law from psychiatric beds, acute care beds, and rehabilitation beds. There is a separate need methodology for long-term psychiatric beds and there are no CON licensed long-term psychiatric programs for children and adolescents in District IX, unless one considers Humana which is treating adolescents well beyond 30 or 90 days residency. HRS has no promulgated rule predicting need for IRTPs seeking specialty hospital licensure under Chapter 395, F.S. Subsequent to advice of its counsel that a CON must be obtained as a condition of IRTP licensure pursuant to Chapter 395, F.S., HRS elected to evaluate all IRTP CON applications in the context of the statutory criteria of Chapter 381, F.S., and in the context of HRS' non-rule policy establishing a rebuttable presumption of need for one "reasonably sized" IRTP in each HRS planning district. The May 5, 1988 Final Order in Florida Psychiatric Centers v. HRS, et al., DOAH Case No. 88- 0008R, held this non-rule policy invalid as a rule due to HRS' failure to promulgate it pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S., but that order also held the policy not to be invalid as contrary to Chapter 381, F.S. That Final Order intervened between the close of final hearing in the instant case and entry of the instant Recommended Order, however, it does not alter the need for the agency to explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case by case basis. HRS was unable to do so in the formal hearing in the instant case. Notwithstanding the oral testimony of Robert May and Elizabeth Dudek, and the deposition testimony of John Griffin, it appears that the non- rule policy is not based upon generally recognized health planning considerations, but solely on the agency's statutory interpretation of recent amendments to Chapter 395 and some vague perception, after internal agency discussions, that the policy is consistent with certain promulgated need rules and with certain other non-rule policies for other types of health care entities, which other non-rule policies were never fully enunciated or proved up in this formal hearing. The HRS non-rule policy was also not affirmatively demonstrated to be rational because it does not take into account the reasonableness of a proposed facility's average length of stay, referral sources, geographic access, or other factors common to duly promulgated CON rules. Numerical Need and Conformity to Applicable Health Plans FRTC sought to support HRS' non-rule policy on numerical need for, and definition of, a "reasonably sized" IRTP through the testimony of Dr. Ronald Luke, who was qualified as an expert in health planning, development of need methodologies, health economies, survey research, and development of mental health programs. In the absence of a finding of a rational non-rule policy on numerical need, Dr. Luke's evidence forms the cornerstone of FRTC's demonstration of numerical need. Through the report and testimony of Dr. Luke, and despite contrary expert health planning testimony, FRTC established the numerical need for, and reasonableness of, its 60 licensed IRTP beds in District IX with projected 60 percent occupancy in the first year and 50 percent in the second year of operation using two bed need methodologies. Dr. Luke ultimately relied on a utilization methodology based upon 1991 population projections. Dr. Luke used a census rate per 100,000 population of 21.58. This is appropriately and reasonably derived from national data for residential treatment patients aged 0-17, regardless of the fact that the types of residential treatment considered by the NIMH data base employed by Dr. Luke greatly vary in concept and despite HRS having not yet clearly defined the nature of the programs and services it expects to be offered by a Florida specialty hospital licensed IRTP. Therefrom, Dr. Luke derived an average daily census of 52 in 1991. That figure yields a bed sizing of between 58 and 61 beds, depending on whether an 85 percent or 90 percent occupancy factor is plugged in. Either 58 or 61 beds is within the range of ratios calculated by Dr. Luke's other methodology for currently licensed Florida IRTPs in other districts. Assuming a target occupancy rate of 85 percent and an ALOS of one year, Dr. Luke considered the gross District IX IRTP bed need to be 60. In the absence of any like program to assess occupancy for and in the presence of similar programs such as Humana operating at nearly full occupancy now and RTCPB forecasting its occupancy at 88 percent in 1990 if it were IRTP-licensed, it is found that 60 beds are justified. Since there are no IRTP beds licensed as specialty hospitals in the current district bed inventory, no adjustment of this figure must be made to account for existing licensed IRTP beds. Simply stated, this is a CON application for an IRTP, nothing more and nothing less, and the subtrahend to be subtracted from gross district bed need is zero when there is a zero specialty hospital licensed IRTP bed inventory. Luke's calculated gross need of 60 bed is also his net need and is accepted. Fifty beds is generally the minimum size HRS will approve to be feasible for any free standing facility to be eonomically efficient and to be able to benefit from economies of scale. This 50 bed concept is within the wide range of bed ratios that HRS implicitly has found reasonable in, previously- licensed IRTP CON approvals. Conformity With Applicable Health Plans Section 38l.705(1)(a), F.S., requires HRS to consider CON applications against criteria contained in the applicable State and District Health Plans. In this regard, neither the applicable State Health Plan nor the applicable District IX Local Health Plan make any reference to a need for intensive residential treatment facilities. The District IX Health Plan addresses the need for psychiatric and substance abuse services to be available to all individuals in District IX. FRTC's project addresses this goal only in part. The District Health Plan states that priority should be given to CON applicants who make a commitment to providing indigent care. FRTC proposes only 1.5 percent indigent care which works out to only 1/2 of the ALOS of one patient at the proposed facility and is hardly optimum, but in a noncomparative hearing, it stands alone as advancing the given accessibility goal within the plan. Objective 1.3 of the State Health Plan provides: Through 1987, additional long-term inpatient psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy for all existing and approved long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the HRS District is at least 80 percent. FRTC's project is neutral as to this goal. The District Plan also contains a goal for a complete range of health care services for the population of the district. FRTC advances this goal. The State Health Plan further provides: Goal 10: DEVELOP A COMPLETE RANGE OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN EACH HRS DISTRICT OBJECTIVE 10.1: Develop a range of essential mental health services in each HRS district by 1989. OBJECTIVE 10.3: Develop a network of residential treatment settings for Florida's severely emotionally disturbed children by 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.03A: Develop residential placements within Florida for all SED children currently receiving ing treatment in out-of-state facilities by 1990. The FRTC project advances these goals in part. To the extent SED patients placed outside the state for residential treatment services are HRS patients whom FRTC as yet has not contracted to treat, the FRTC project does not advance this goal. However, increased insurance reimbursement will advance accessibility for those SED children and adolescents in need of this type of care whose families have insurance coverage. The State Plan also emphasizes a goal for a continuum of care. The FRTC plan advances this goal. Financial Feasibility William S. Love, Senior Director of Hospital Operations for Charter, was accepted as an expert in health care finance. Mr. Love prepared the pro forma financial statement contained in the original CON application and the update of the pro forma in response to HRS' completeness questions. Mr. Love also had input into the updated financial information which increased salary and benefit expense. (See FOF No. 11). The revised pro forma utilized an assumption of gross patient revenues of $300 per day and a 365 day ALOS, both of which are reasonable and both of which support the rest of FRTC's assumptions (See FOF No. 9). Routine revenues are based on the types of routine services patients normally receive on a daily basis. Ancillary revenues are support revenues such as pharmacy charges, X-rays, lab charges, and other charges not generally utilized on a routine basis. The only charges to patients at the proposed FRTC facility are the routine and ancillary charges. The assumptions with regard to contractual adjustments are that there will be no Medicare utilization since the facility is projected for children and adolescents and no Medicaid since freestanding facilities in Florida are not eligible for Medicaid. Two percent of gross patient revenues are estimated to be contractual adjustments which relate to HMOs and PPOs. FRTC addresses indigent care by 1.5 percent of gross revenues which will be dedicated to Charter Care which is free care. The assumptions with regard to bad debt are that 8 percent of gross revenue will be the allowance for bad debt. An assumption of 20 percent of salaries was used for employee benefits which include the FICA tax, health insurance, dental insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits. Supplies and expenses were calculated as a function of patient day with a $90 per day estimate. Included in supplies and expenses are supplies utilized in the delivery of health care services as well as medical professional fees such as the half-time medical director and purchased services such as laundry, linen, speech and hearing services, utilities, telephone, malpractice insurance, repairs and maintenance. The depreciation assumptions are that the building would be depreciated over 40 years, fixed equipment over 20 years and major movable equipment over 10 years. Pre-opening expenses for the first 45 days of operation have been capitalized over 60 months with low amortization costs over 15 years. There is no income tax assumed in the first year but the assumption in subsequent years is that the tax rate will be 38 percent. The failure to assume a hospital tax is inconsequential. The assumptions for the second fiscal year are basically the same. Although staffing remained the same, the FTEs per occupied bed increased, and a 7 percent inflation factor was added. The project will be financially feasible even though the facility is pessimistically projecting a loss of $102,000 for the first year because a facility can suffer a loss in its first year of operation and remain financially feasible. The facility projects a $286,000 profit in its second year of operation. With regard to utilization by class of pay, FRTC has assumed that the insurance category represents 65.5 percent of total revenues projected and includes such things as commercial insurance, Blue Cross and any third party carrier other than Medicare and Medicaid. Assumptions with regard to the private pay are that 25 percent of the total revenues will be generated by private pay patients and would include the self pay portions of an insurance payor's bill, such as deductible and co-insurance. Bad debt was assumed to be 8 percent, and Charter Care or free care, 1.5 percent. FRTC's projected utilization by class of pay is reasonable and is supported by the protestants' current experience with commercial insurance utilization and reimbursement and the predicted recoveries if RTCPB were IRTP-licensed. In the second year of operation, the assumptions with regard to utilization by class of pay demonstrated an increase in the insurance category from 65.5 to 66.5 percent with everything else remaining the same except for a decrease in bad debt to 7 percent. The assumption with regard to a decrease in bad debt is based upon the establishment of referral patterns from acute psychiatric facilities, outpatient programs, mental health therapists, and miscellaneous programs. The assumption is that 65 percent of the patients would be covered by insurance, not that 65 percent of each bill would be paid by insurance. Charter's experience has been that a good portion of the deductible and co-insurance payments are collectible. FRTC did not assume payment from any governmental contracts or HRS reimbursement. FRTC's projected self pay percentages assumption reasonably contemplates the percentage of households in the district which can afford its projections for self pay. For purposes of evaluating the financial feasibility of this proposal, a management fee was not included because in looking at the financial feasibility of a facility the expenses of a corporate home office are incurred whether or not the facility is built. It was not appropriate to allocate a management fee to the hospital because it showed a loss in its first year of operation and a profit in its second. When the facility becomes profitable, FRTC anticipates passing the profit through to the corporation to help reduce the corporate overhead. If a management fee had been allocated to this facility, allocations would have had to have been made to the other Charter facilities to show where their management expense had decreased and their profitability increased. It would have been inappropriate to take these fixed expenses and allocate a portion of them to the proposed FRTC facility. In addition to the fact that the failure to include a management fee in the pro forma should not affect the feasibility of the project, Charter has good cause not to apply a $44 per patient day management fee in its IRTP. FRTC's categories of payor class are generally reasonable based in part on the results of a survey performed in Florida. FRTC's assumptions and calculations are reasonable, based upon the testimony of William S. Love and Dr. Ronald Luke, notwithstanding the testimony of Dan Sullivan, Donald Wilson, and Christopher Knepper, also qualified as experts. Specifically, it is found that Dr. Luke's assessment that the designation of a facility as a licensed specialty hospital has a beneficial effect on its ability to obtain insurance reimbursement for services, that reimbursement impacts to increase ALOS, and that the breakdown of sources of payment that FRTC has used is reasonable, is a credible assessment, supported elsewhere in the record. It is also found that Mr. Knepper's assessment for bad debt is inadequately supported and inconsistent with other evidence, and therefore not credible. Mr. Sullivan's testimony is not persuasive. Staffing and Recruitment Dr. Brett, a Charter regional director for hospital operations, was accepted as an expert in staffing psychiatric facilities including residential treatment centers. His distinctions between the acute care and residential types of facilities are corroborated and explained by other witnesses and evidence. Mr. Joyner was accepted as Charter's expert recruiter. Although the depth of Mr. Joyner's hands-on involvement in active recruitment is not extensive, the Charter network of manpower referrals and "head hunting" will obviously support this project. Upon the combined testimony of Dr. Brett, Mr. Joyner, and Paul Bodner, Charter's senior director of physician relations, there is sufficient evidence that FRTC can recruit a suitable staffing pattern to ensure quality of care (see FOF Nos. 9 and 10) in its proposed program, even if it has to hire from out of state and pay somewhat higher salaries due to some qualified manpower shortages in certain categories in Palm Beach County. In making this finding, the undersigned has considered the testimony of Donald Wilson concerning certain institution-specific recruiting problems of his principal, RTCPB, and the "step down" status of residential treatment as testified by Mary Certo, of Humana. Impact on Costs and Competition The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to attract patients with insurance coverage who would otherwise go to existing facilities for care, however, in light of the relatively consistent occupancy rates at Humana and RTCPB despite both their geographical proximity and the unique confusion of referrals arising over the relocation of Dr. Kelly, this impact is not altogether clear. Dr. Kelly's reputation will not be impacted by granting of a CON to FRTC. It is also not possible upon the basis of the record created in this hearing to factor out reimbursement differences inherent in Humana's current CON classification and RTCPB's circumstance as an unlicensed intensive residential treatment center. In any case, the negative impact upon Humana must be measured against the health planning goals expressed by several witnesses that it is desirable to substitute more suitable, less restrictive facilities for institutionalization of the severely emotionally disturbed child and adolescent whenever possible and that it is also desirable to encourage residential treatment upon a continuum of care basis after acute psychiatric care. The FRTC project will obviously increase the accessibility to this type of treatment for young people who have the appropriate insurance coverage. These goals are in conformity with the applicable health plans. The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to initially increase some costs of health services throughout the district because it will inflate some salary costs due to competition, but the negative impact will probably be short term.
Recommendation Upon a balanced consideration of all relevant criteria it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order approving FRTC's CON application for an IRTP, as updated, for licensure as a specialty hospital. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-2037 & 87-2050 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., with regard to the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) of FRTC: Covered in "issue" and FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 2. 3-7. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 8. Accepted in FOF 12. 9-12. Except as subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative, accepted in FOF 7-9. 13. Accepted in FOF 10. 14-17. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 7-11, 30. Although portions of the underlying data referred to in proposal 16 and by Mr. Joyner in his testimony was excluded from evidence, he was qualified as a recruitment expert and for the reasons set forth in FOF 30, his opinion is accepted. 18-19. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 23. Accepted in FOF 24. Accepted in FOF 25 and 29. Accepted in FOF 26 and 29. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 27. Except as mere argument or statement of position, accepted in FOF 26-27, and 29. 27-29. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 26-29. 30-31. Accepted in FOF 28. 32-40. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 9, 11, 21, 26-29. 41-44. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 29-32. 45-47. Rejected, as recital or summation of testimony and as part of preliminary agency review not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 48. Covered in FOF 7, 18-20, 22, and 26. 49-52. dejected as set out in "organic law and legislative background," "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15. See also COL. 53. Accepted in FOF 16. 54-58. Rejected in part and accepted in part as set out in FOF 14-15. Rejected where not supported in full by the record as a whole, where subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found and where mere recital of testimony. 59. Accepted in principle and modified to conform to the record in FOF 18-20, 31. 60-61. Accepted in part and rejected in part as stated in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and in FOF 14-16 and the COL. Accepted in FOF 15 and COL. Accepted in FOF 18-20, 31. 64-68. Rejected as unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 1, 7, 13-15 and 29, also in part as not supported by the record as a whole, and as primarily legal argument and recitation of testimony. Accepted in FOF 3-4 and 30. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 3-4, 7, 26, and 29. 71-74. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9 and 30-32. HRS' Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF): 1-3. Accepted in "organic law and legislative background." 4. (Two paragraphs) Accepted FOF 3-4. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. Accepted, FOF 29-32. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted, FOF 1. 10-18 & 20. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5, 6, 15, 26, 31. 19. Rejected as irrelevant. 21-28. Accepted in part as modified to conform to the record as a whole in FOF 6-9, 30-31. The irrelevant, unnecessary or subordinate material has also been rejected. 29-31. Accepted in FOF 4, 9, 21, 26, 29-31. 32-35. Accepted in FOF 7-9. 36-41. Accepted in FOF 7-9 as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application, in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 42-45. Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 9-11, 21, 23, 30 and 32. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 22, 26. 49-52. Accepted in FOF 3, 4, 21-29. Assuming, based on the transcript reference, that this proposal refers to FRTC's pro forma, this proposal is accepted but unnecessary for the reasons set forth in rulings on HRS' PFOF 36-45. See FOF 11 and 21-29. Accepted in FOF 13-15. 55-58. Rejected as unnecessary. 59. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 13-15. 60-62. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-14, as mere recital of testimony and statements of position. 63. Accepted in FOF 29. 64-65. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Accepted in FOF 7-9. Accepted that HRS made this assumption but it fails to explicate the non-rule policy. See FOF 13-14. Accepted in FOF 16. Rejected as a statement of position or COL. Peripherally, see COL. Accepted in FOF 13-14 but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. Rejected in FOF 13-14. 72-74. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 75-76. Accepted in FOF 17-20. This is a subordinate definition and not a FOF. See FOF 30-31 and COL. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 17-20, 31. Accepted in FOF 10. Accepted in FOF 13-15. Accepted as stated in the "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15 and in the COL. 82-85. Covered in FOF 3-6, 13-15. 86. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 87-88. Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary. 89. Accepted in FOF 29. 90-96. Accepted as modified to conform to the record evidence as a whole and FOF 15-16 and to reject subordinate and unnecessary material. Accepted without any connotations of the word "therefore" in FOF 4, 7-9, 21 and 29. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Accepted in "organic and legislative background" and FOF 13-15. Rejected as not established upon the record as a whole; unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of position only. Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of RTCPB and Humana 1-2 Accepted in FOF 1. 3-4. Accepted in FOF 2. 5-6. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. 7. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 5-6. 8-13. Accepted in part and rejected in part as set out under "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 3-6, 13-15, and the COL. 14-18. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 1, 7-9, 11, 21-29. 19-27. Rejected as irrelevant preliminary action to this de novo proceeding. 28-36. Rejected in part and accepted in part upon the compelling competent, substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set forth in FOF 13-14. Also as to 33 see FOF 15. 37-52. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-16 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence of record as a whole. Irrelevant, unnecessary and subordinate material has been rejected, as has mere argument of counsel. Accepted in FOF 17. Rejected in FOF 20, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 20, 31. Excepting the mere rhetoric, accepted in FOF 18, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 7, 18-20, 26, 31. 58-59. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 17-20, 26, Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as recital of testimony and argument 62-63. Rejected as unnecessary. 64-67. Accepted in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The first sentence is rejected as cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. Rejected in FOF 4, 21. Accepted in FOF 4 and 21, 29. Rejected as unnecessary Accepted in FOF 26. Rejected in FOF 15-20, 31. Rejected as unnecessary in a noncomparitive hearing. 75-87. Except as irrelevant, unnecessary, or subordinate, accepted in FOF 5-9, 30, 31. Rejected in part as unnecessary and in part as not comporting with the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 7-10 and 30. Accepted in FOF 1, 5-9. 90-92. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Rejected in FOF 5-6. Rejected as subordinate. 95-98. Accepted in FOF 5-9. 99-102. Rejected as unnecessary. 103. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9. 104-118. Except as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, these proposals are covered in FOF 5-9, 30-31. Except as Subordinate, covered in FOF 6 and 31. Accepted in part in FOF 5-9, 21-29, otherwise rejected as misleading. Except as subordinate, accepted in FOF 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 21-29. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 21-29. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary in part and not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in 21-29. 127-128. These proposals primarily recite testimony by Mr. Grono, an administrator of a psychiatric hospital for very severely disturbed persons (Grant Center). This evidence by itself is not persuasive in light of Dr. Luke's study and other admissions of the parties referenced in FOF 21-29. Upon the greater weight of contrary evidence, it is rejected. 129. Rejected as subordinate except partly accepted in FOF 29. 130-133. Rejected upon the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 9, 11 and 21-29. 134, 139. Rejected as legal argument without citation. 135-138. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 140-144. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence and as partly mere legal argument. See FOF 9, 21-29. 145. The first sentence is rejected upon the reference to PFOF 140-144 for the same reasons given above and the remainder is rejected as subordinate. 146. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 147. Rejected as mere legal argument without citation. 148-149. Rejected in FOF 21-29, particularly 27 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. The mere legal argument is also rejected. 150-157. Rejected as set out in FOF 28 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. Uncited argument and statements of position have likewise bean rejected. 158, 160. Rejected as mere argument without citation. 159. Rejected as subordinate and not dispositive of any material issue at bar in FOF 23. 161. Rejected as mere argument. 162-167. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in FOF 30-32. Also 167 is rejected as mere argument without citation. 168. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 30-32. 169. Accepted but subordinate. 170. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 31. 171-180. Covered in FOF 30-32. 181-185. Rejected as contrary to the evidence in part and in part unnecessary and cumulative to the ruling in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 7, 10-11, 21, 23, 30-32. 186-188. Rejected in FOF 7, 10 and 30 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. 189. Rejected as unnecessary 190. Rejected in FOF 30. 191-392. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 30-32. 193. Rejected in FOF 30-32. 194-195. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, rejected in the several references to future establishment of referral networks. See FOF 21, 27. 196-197 & 199. Rejected as unnecessary 198. Rejected as irrelevant in part and immaterial in part upon the rulings in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 200. Rejected as unnecessary 201-202. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 26-27 and 31, but cumulative. 203. Covered in the COL. Rejected in FOF 21-22. 204. Rejected as mere argument without citation. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE, CAROTHERS & PROCTOR 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire BONNER & O'CONNEL 900 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH & MADSEN 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred W Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the methodology for grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB pursuant to Sections 4D- 1.03, 4D-1.12(1) and 4D-1.12(2), F.A.C., constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as being arbitrary or capricious? Mercy has also raised one issue as to whether the grouping methodology is violative of constitutional guarantees of administrative equal protection and due process. This issue, however, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Introduction. The HCCB and Its Hospital Grouping Function. The HCCB was formed pursuant to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1979). The HCCB was created pursuant to the specific authority of Section 395.503, Florida Statutes (1979), in order to further the accomplishment of legislative intent contained in Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): It is the intent of the Legislature to assure that adequate health care is affordable and accessible to all the citizens of this state. To further the accomplishment of this goal, the Hospital Cost Containment Board is created to advise the Legislature regarding health care costs; inflationary trends in health care costs; the impact of health care costs on the state budget; the impact of hospital charges and third-party reimbursement mechanisms on health care costs; and the education of consumers and providers of health care services in order to encourage price competition in the health care marketplace. The Legislature finds and declares that rising hospital costs and cost shifting are of vital concern to the people of this state because of the danger that hospital services are becoming unaffordable and thus inaccessible to residents of the state. It is further declared that hospital costs should be contained through improved competition between hospitals and improved competition between insurers, through financial incentives which foster efficiency instead of inefficiency, and through sincere initiatives on behalf of providers, insurers, and consumers to contain costs. As a safety net, it is the intent of the Legislature to establish a program of prospective budget review and approval in the event that competition-oriented methods do not adequately contain costs and the access of Floridians to adequate hospital care becomes jeopardized because of unaffordable costs. As a part of its responsibilities the HCCB is required, "after consulting with appropriate professional and governmental advisory bodies and holding public hearings, and considering existing and proposed systems of accounting and reporting utilized by hospitals," to specify a uniform system of financial reporting for hospitals. Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes Suppl.) to: In order to allow "meaningful comparisons" of data reported by hospitals under the uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB is required by Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.) to group hospitals according to characteristics, including, but not limited to, a measure of the nature and range of services provided, teaching hospital status, number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff, percentage of Medicare inpatient days, average daily census, geographical differences, and, when available, case mix. In providing for grouping of hospital, the HCCB is required to establish ten general hospital groups and additional speciality groups "as needed." Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). No hospital group can contain fewer than five hospitals, however. Id. Grouping is to be provided by rule. Id. Pursuant to Section 395.509(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), every Florida hospital is required to file its budget with the HCCB for "approval." The budget is required to be filed on forms adopted by the HCCB and based on the uniform system of financial reporting. Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). To determine whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, all hospitals in Florida are to be placed in groups. A hospital's budget is then compared to the budgets of the hospitals assigned to its group. Hospital groups for this purpose are established pursuant to Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The provisions of Section 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), are identical to Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In determining whether a hospital's budget is to be approved, Section 305.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), establishes two initial "screens" which a hospital must meet based upon the hospital's gross revenue per adjusted admission. The term "gross revenue" is defined as: the sum of daily hospital service charges, ambulatory service charges, ancillary service charges, and other operating revenue. Gross revenues do not include contributions, donations, legacies, or bequests made to a hospital without restriction by the donors. Section 395.502(11), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). "Adjusted admission" is defined by Section 395.502(1), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), as: the sum of acute admissions and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues generated from acute, intensive, ambulatory, and ancillary patient services to gross revenues. Gross revenues per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "GRAA") is therefore the total hospital ambulatory and ancillary service charges and other operating revenue for all acute and intensive care admissions divided by the ratio of inpatient revenues from acute, intensive, ambulatory and ancillary patient services to gross revenue; or, stated more simply , inpatient revenue per admission. The "screens" which must be met in order for a hospital's budget to be approved upon initial determination are: (1) the hospital's GRAA must not be in the upper 20th percentile of the hospitals within its group; and (2) the rate of increase in a hospital's GRAA as contained in its current budget compared to the hospital's GRAA as reported in its most recently approved budget must not exceed a "maximum allowable rate of increase" if the hospital's GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of the hospitals in its group. If a hospital's GRAA is in the 49th percentile or less of the hospitals in its group, its budget is automatically approved. In determining whether a hospital's GRAA fails the screens, Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides: Percentile values for gross operating revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly by the board for each group established pursuant to s. 395.507(2) by ranking projected gross operating revenues per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. In determining the applicability of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), the board shall consider the basis of the projections by the hospital, including consideration of the following factors: any increase in patient admissions caused by the creation of preferred provider organizations or health maintenance organiza- tions, population increases, changes in the hospital case mix or in services offered, changes in technology, or other similar factors. If a hospital's GRAA fails either of the screens (its GRAA is in the upper 20th percentile of its group or its GRAA rate of increase is excessive and its GRAA is in the 50th to 79th percentile of its group) that hospital's budget must be reviewed by the HCCB "to determine whether the rate of increase contained in the budget is just, reasonable, and not excessive." Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Pursuant to Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB is authorized, if it first determines under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that the hospital's rate of increase is not just, reasonable and not excessive, to amend or disapprove any hospital's budget which does not meet the two screens of Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to establish a rate of increase which is "just, reasonable, and not excessive." The HCCB's authority under Section 395.509(6), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), applies only if the HCCB first complies with the following pertinent provisions of Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.): The board shall disapprove any budget, or part thereof, as excess that contains a rate of increase which is not necessary to maintain the existing level of services of the hospital or, if the hospital increases its existing level of services, any amount not necessary to accomplish that increase. In making such deterioration . . . the board shall consider the following criteria: The efficiency, sufficiency, and adequacy of the services and facilities provided by the hospital. The cost of providing services and the value of the services to the public. The ability of the hospital to improve services and facilities. The ability of the hospital to reduce the cost of services. The ability of the hospital to earn a reasonable rate of return. The accuracy of previous budget submissions by the hospital compared to the actual experience of the hospital the The number of patient days reimbursed by Medicare or Medicaid. The number of patient days attributable to the medically indigent. The research and educational services provided by the hospital if it is a teaching hospital. The projected expenditures or revenues for or from construction of facilities or new services which are subject to regulation under s. 381.494 may not be included in the budget of a hospital until the construction or services are approved or authorized by the state health planning agency. The cost of opening a new hospital, for first 3 years. The Challenged Rules. In carrying out its duty to establish a uniform system of financial reporting, the HCCB adopted Section 4D- 1.03, F.A.C., which provides: The Board, pursuant to Section 395.505, Florida Statutes, hereby adopts and establishes a uniform system for hospitals to file the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report of financial and statistical information. This system is described and the forms, instructions, and definitions therefor are contained in the Board's publication entitled Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual. The Chart of Accounts adopted pursuant to Section 395.507(1), Florida Statutes, and this Chapter 4D-1, and as hereafter modified, shall be utilized by each hospital for submitting the prior year audited actual data report, the interim report and the budget report. In order to determine whether a hospital's budget should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the HCCB adopted Section 4D-1.12, F.A.C. Sections 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., provide: The staff shall review the budget report based upon the hospital's ranking for gross revenue per adjusted admission within its group and upon its rate of change in gross revenue per adjusted admission in the proposed budget as required in Section 395.507(6), Florida Statutes, and the most recently Board approved budget. As part of the budget report review process, groupings of hospitals shall be established according to the characteristics and methodology as outlined in Chapter V, Section B, Hospital Unit Uniform Reporting System Manual and as outlined in Section 395.507(2), Florida Statutes. Percentile values for gross revenue per adjusted admission shall be determined monthly for each group by ranking projected gross revenue per adjusted admission contained in the most recently approved or submitted budgets for the hospitals in each group, including any hospital that is contesting its grouping assignment. 12. Sections 4D-1.03 and 4D-1.12(1) and (2), F.A.C., are the rules challenged by Mercy. These rules, as quoted herein, were effective as of November 5, 1984. The rules were originally adopted effective June 30, 1980. The rules were amended to their present wording in response to "major" legislation enacted in 1984 which amended Part II, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), and granted authority to the HCCB for the first time to approve, disapprove or amend hospital budgets under certain circumstances. Chapter 79-106, Laws of Florida. The challenged rules essentially provide that the HCCB, when grouping of hospitals for purposes of the uniform system of financial reporting and for purposes of reviewing and comparing budgets to determine if they should be automatically approved under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will apply the grouping methodology outlined in Chapter V, Section B of the Hospital Uniform Reporting System Manual (hereinafter referred to as the "Manual"). Section 4D-1.18, F.A.C., also adopted effective November 5, 1984, incorporates by reference the Manual within each rule in Chapter 4D-1, F.A.C., which references the Manual. This rule has not been challenged in this proceeding. The Hospital Grouping Methodology and Its Development. Generally, Chapter V, Section B of the Manual, sets out the objective of the grouping methodology, the procedure for forming groups, a list of the variables considered in forming groups and the weight to be accorded each variable. The goals of the grouping methodology, as provided in the Manual, are to "facilitate comparison of hospitals with similar patient mix and market conditions" and to "develop groups of sufficient size . . . to assure statistically valid comparisons." Based upon the procedure for forming groups contained in the Manual, hospitals are grouped into nine, non-teaching, short-term hospital groups, one Major teaching hospital group and a number of specialty hospital groups. It is the method of grouping hospitals into nine short-term hospital groups which is at issue in this proceeding. Assignment of hospitals to the nine short-term hospital groups is accomplished through the use of the "McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm included in the cluster analysis t computer program package CLAN developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham (June, 1980 version)." A clustering analysis is a method of grouping a set of objects (in this case, hospitals) into relatively homogeneous groups. The goal of a clustering algorithm is to minimize the differences between the members of the group. The objects are grouped based upon a set of variables which are considered significant for purposes of comparing the objects. In order to account for the significance of each variable, the variables are weighted. The variables have a numerical score and after weighing, the weighted sum of the variables for each object is compared and the objects are grouped based upon their variable scores. There are a number of clustering algorithms which can be used to group hospitals. The HCCB chose to use the "McQueen's K-means" clustering algorithm. The use of McQueens K-means clustering algorithm has not bean challenged in this proceeding. Nor does the evidence establish that the selection of McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm is arbitrary and capricious. The clustering algorithm is performed by computer. The computer program utilized by the HCCB to perform the algorithm is called "CLAN" and was developed by T.D. Klastorin and Robert Ledingham. The evidence at the hearing supports a finding that the selection of this computer program is reasonable. Once hospitals are grouped, they are notified of their group designation and allowed to request reconsideration of their group assignment. The request must made within thirty days after notification. Following the creation of the HCCB in 1979, Price Waterhouse & Company was engaged by the HCCB as a consultant to assist in still establishing an appropriate hospital grouping methodology. The HCCB also created an advisory committee to assist the HCCB and Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology. This committee, designated as the Technical Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "TAC") was comprised of individuals from the hospital industry and academia and certified public accountants. The TAC worked with Price Waterhouse & Company in developing the grouping methodology and the uniform reporting system. Because of time constraints, the TAC's involvement with evaluating the methodology was limited. The HCCB ultimately decided to pattern the grouping methodology it adopted after the grouping methodology then being used by the State of Washington, as recommended by Price Waterhouse & Company. The Washington system was not adopted exactly; a number of changes to Washington's methodology were made to the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. Mercy has proposed several findings of fact beginning on page 35 and ending on page 38 of its proposed order concerning the "Differences in Washington Hospital Characteristics and Grouping Methodology Model." Those proposed findings of fact can be and are hereby disposed of by the following finding of fact: because of differences in the hospital industries of the States of Florida and Washington and other differences between the two States, Florida's grouping methodology cannot be justified solely on the basis that Washington's grouping methodology was used as a starting point in developing Florida's grouping methodology. Those differences, however, do not support a finding of fact that Florida's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious since the Washington system was not adopted without substantial modifications, including a reduction of Washington's eighteen variables initially to fourteen and ultimately to seven, and the use of unequal weighting of the variables. The TAC reviewed and discussed the grouping methodology initially approved by the HCCB prior to its approval. Some of Mercy's witnesses, who were members of the TAC, indicated during their testimony that the TAC never decided anything because no "vote" was ever taken of TAC members and that the TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. Their testimony in this regard has been given little weight. The fact that no formal "vote" was taken of TAC members does not mean that the TAC did not take a position on matters it discussed. The consensus of the TAC could be, and was, gleaned from its discussions. The staff of the HCCB in fact reported decisions of the TAC to the HCCB verbally and by minutes of TAC meetings. Although the accuracy of staff's reports was sometimes questioned, no question was raised about whether TAC had taken positions. The fact that the HCCB staff reported TAC actions to the HCCB also disputes the testimony to the effect that TAC did not advise the HCCB but instead advised the staff of the HCCB. While it may be true that TAC did not deal directly with the HCCB, its analysis was reported, to the HCCB. The HCCB ultimately adopted rules effective June 30, 1980, which incorporated by reference to the Manual, the general outline of the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB. The TAC ceased to exist following adoption of the HCCB's initial rules. Two new advisory committees were formed: a Technical Advisory Panel (hereinafter referred to as "TAP") on grouping and a TAP for financial analysis. The grouping TAP was made up of individuals from the hospital industry. The grouping TAP met in November and December of 1980 and reviewed the results of test runs of the grouping methodology initially adopted by the HCCB. The results of the initial run were described as "bizarre." This run used equal weighting of the variables. Equal weighting was abandoned and three to four more test runs were made and reviewed by the grouping TAP. After each run the variable weights were adjusted until the results appeared to be "reasonable." The HCCB also established a committee consisting of members of the HCCB designated as the Research and Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "R & D Committee"). The R & D Committee reviewed the results of test runs and also found the final groups reasonable. The HCCB met in January, 1981, and adopted the grouping methodology with the adjusted variable weights arrived at as a result of the test runs for use in establishing hospital groups for use in 1981. The grouping methodology was reviewed every year after its initial adoption in 1980. The methodology was reviewed by the HCCB, HCCB's staff, the TAP's and the R & D Committee each year. Throughout the period from 1980 to the present, criticisms of the grouping methodology have been made. Some of these criticisms were agreed with and others were rejected by the HCCB or its staff. Following review of the grouping methodology by the TAP's and the R & D Committee in 1981, the original fourteen variables were reduced to eight. In January, 1982, the weight of one of the variables was changed and one variable was replaced by another variable. In December, 1982, a variable was deleted; seven variables remained. In 1983, clustering analysis was limited in its application to the formation of short-term acute care general hospital groups. In 1984, following the significant amendment of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983), the HCCB adopted the present challenged rules. The rules were effective November 5, 1984. The only change in the grouping methodology approved by the HCCB was the substitution of the Florida price level index variable for percent of population over age 65. The weight assigned to the Florida price level index was the same as the weight that had been assigned to the percent of population over age 65. The changes made to the grouping methodology in 1984 were first suggested by the staff of the HCCB to the grouping TAP in June of 1984. The grouping TAP met on July 11, 1984 and considered and discussed the proposed changes. A number of problem areas were discussed. Although no test run results were presented at this TAP meeting, they were provided to TAP members before the HCCB adopted the grouping methodology changes. Concerns about the geographic or exogenous variables expressed at the grouping TAP meeting suggested a belief that too much or too little emphasis was being placed on geographic considerations. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact beginning on page 33 and ending on page 35 of its proposed order concerning the significance of the changes made by the Legislature in 1984 to Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1983). Those proposed findings of fact essentially deal with the fact that the powers of the HCCB after the 1984 amendments may have a more significant impact on hospitals and that, therefore, the grouping methodology is of greater interest to hospitals. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not, however, relevant in determining whether the challenged rules are arbitrary and capricious. The fact that the effect of the grouping methodology on a hospital may now be different does not mean that the use of the grouping methodology, as modified after the 1984 legislative changes to the law, which was developed when the purpose of grouping was different, is not an appropriate methodology. The evidence does not support such a conclusion. Therefore, to the extent that Mercy's proposed findings of fact under Section II, A, of its proposed order have not already been made, they are rejected as unnecessary. Mercy and the HCCB have proposed findings of fact as to whether Mercy has ever questioned the HCCB's grouping methodology since it was first adopted prior to instituting this proceeding. Those proposed findings of fact are not deemed relevant in determining whether the grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. If the grouping methodology is in fact arbitrary and capricious, the fact that Mercy did not challenge the methodology when it was first adopted will not make it any less arbitrary and capricious today. Mercy's Challenge. A. Introduction. Mercy is a not-for-profit, general acute care hospital with 550 licensed beds located in Dade County, Florida. Mercy has raised a number of points in this proceeding and its proposed order in challenging the rules in question. All of those points, according to Mercy, prove that the rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. In determining whether the facts support such a conclusion, the following standard must be kept in mind: [I]n a 120.54 hearing, the hearing officer must look to the legislative authority for the rule and determine whether or not the proposed rule is encompassed within the grant. The burden is upon one who attacks the proposed rule to show that the agency, if it adopts the rule, would exceed its authority; that the requirements of the rule are not appropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act; that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation or that the proposed rule or the requirements thereof are arbitrary or capricious. A capricious action is one which is taken without thought or reason or irrationally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic or despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based upon competent substantial evidence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Agrico Chemical Company v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 74 (1979). Additionally, the following must be kept in mind: The well recognized general rule is that agencies are to be accorded wide discretion in the exercise of their lawful rulemaking authority, clearly conferred or fairly implied and consistent with the agencies' general statutory duties. . . . An agency's construction of the statute it administers is entitled to great weight and is not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous. . . . Where, as here, the agency's interpretation of a statute has been promulgated in rulemaking proceedings, the validity of such rule must be upheld if it is reasonably related to the purposes of the legislation interpreted and it is not arbitrary and capricious. The burden is upon petitioner in a rule challenge to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the rule or its requirements are arbitrary and capricious. . . . Moreover, the agency's interpretation of a statute need not be the sole possible interpretation or even the most desirable one; it need only be within the range of possible interpretations. Department of Professional Regulation v. Durrani, 455 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The witnesses who testified in this proceeding who were accepted as experts were qualified in a number of different areas. Those witnesses qualified as experts in statistical analysis or related areas and health care finance rendered opinions as to the appropriateness of the HCCB's grouping methodology. The method of grouping hospitals adopted by the HCCB is a statistical method. Therefore, the determination of whether the HCCB's methodology is arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon whether the methodology is statistically sound. Mercy and the HCCB therefore presented the testimony of witnesses qualified in the area of statistics: Rick Zimmerman, Ph.D., an expert in statistical analysis and social science statistics (for Mercy), and Duane Meeter, Ph.D., an expert in economics and applied statistical analysis and Frank Fox, Jr., Ph.D., an expert in applied statistics (for the HCCB). All three witnesses were knowledgeable and credible. Dr. Zimmerman testified that the HCCB's grouping methodology was "clearly inappropriate." Dr. Zimmerman's opinion was based upon a three step analysis in which he determined: (1) whether the variables selected by the HCCB are appropriate; (2) whether the weights assigned to the variables by the HCCB are appropriate; and, (3) the effect changing the variables and/or weights would have on hospital groups. The results of Dr. Zimmerman's analysis, which formed the basis for his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology is not appropriate, are discussed, infra. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact in its proposed order concerning the credibility of Dr. Meeter's and Dr. Fox's testimony. Some of those proposed findings of fact have been considered in determining the weight given to their testimony. Both Dr. Meeter and Dr. Fox were, however, knowledgeable and credible. In addition to the opinion of its statistical expert, Mercy presented the testimony of three witnesses who were accepted as experts in health care finance: Messrs. Lawrence R. Murray, Jerry A. Mashburn and Anthony Krayer. All three are certified public accountants. All testified that it was his opinion that the HCCB's grouping methodology was arbitrary. The bases for their opinions are discussed, infra. Selection of "Seed" Hospitals. In order to use a clustering algorithm, a starting point is needed; the first object (hospital) to be placed in each group must be selected. The first objects selected are called "seed" objects. Mercy has attached the HCCB's method of selecting the nine "seed" hospitals in initially performing the McQueen's K-means clustering algorithm. Mercy has proposed the following findings of fact with regard to this point: While none of the parties challenged the use of McQueen's and the CLAN program, no support was offered during the hearing for the method by which the HCCB had selected the nine seed hospitals as initial clustering points. The HCCB's own statistician criticized the HCCB's selection method. The Rankis-Zimmerman report indicates that the final groupings based upon the HCCB's seed hospitals were vastly different than groupings based upon the utilization of seed hospitals selected on a statistical basis. Both the HCCB's and Mercy's statisticians proposed statistically sound methods for selecting seed hospitals, which had not been employed by the HCCB in the Grouping Methodology. [Citations omitted] These proposed findings of fact are not relevant to this proceeding. The burden is on Mercy to show that the selection of "seed" hospitals was arbitrary and capricious; the HCCB is not required to show "support" for its method of selecting the seed hospitals. Additionally, whether there are other methods of selecting seed hospitals is not the test. The HCCB's interpretation of the statute need not be the sole interpretation or even the most desirable one; it only needs to be within the range of possible interpretations. Durrani, supra. Therefore, even if the Rankis-Zimmerman report does indicate that the final groupings of hospitals of the HCCB were vastly different than groupings based upon other methods of selecting seed hospitals, it does not automatically follow that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was not "within the range of possible interpretations. The weight of the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's method of selecting seed hospitals was arbitrary and capricious. Selection of the Variables. In delegating legislative authority to the HCCB to establish a grouping methodology, the Legislature provided that the following relevant characteristics are to be taken into account: A measure of the nature and range of services provided; Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff; Percentage of Medicare inpatient days; Average daily census; Geographic differences; and Case mix, "when available." In response to the Legislature's mandate, the HCCB has adopted seven variables or characteristics. The variables selected by the HCCB include five hospital- specific (endogenous) variables and two geographic (exogenous variables). The variables are as follows: Endogenous Variables: Average occupied beds. Available services. Physician mix. Number of residents. Percent Medicare days. Exogenous Variables: Florida price level index. Personal income. The following findings of fact are made with regard to each of the specific characteristics required to be taken into account by the Legislature and the variables adopted by the HCCB: 1. A measure of the nature and range of services provided. The HCCB has provided in the Manual that "available services" or a service index will be considered. The specific services considered are listed on Table B, Chapter V, of the Manual. Table B also weights or provides a score for each of the various services listed. Each hospital gets the specified score if it has a particular service available. The available services listed are based upon a survey of hospital administrators and chief financial officers in New York, New York, made in the 1970's. Problems with the list of available services have been pointed out to the HCCB and its staff. The primary problem is that the volume of services provided is not taken into account. The problems with the service index, however, relate to the fact that the service index is a proxy for case mix. To date, there is no alternative available which would be a better proxy for case mix. The Legislature contemplated this fact by providing that a measure of the services provided by a hospital will be considered and that case mix will be taken into account "when available." Therefore, while there are "problems" with the service index, consideration of available services is mandated by the Legislature and there are no acceptable alternatives available use for by the HCCB. 2. Number of medical specialties represented on the hospital staff. 52. The HCCB has provided that a physician specialties mix be considered in grouping hospitals. This physician specialties mix is based upon a list of twenty- six specialties for which a hospital gets a single credit for each specialty available regardless of the number of physician specialists available in each specialty or the volume of patients admitted by a physician. 52. Like the service index, the physician specialties mix is a proxy for ease mix and has problems associated with its use. Also like the service index, consideration of this factor is mandated and there are no acceptable alternatives available for use by the HCCB. 3. Percentage of Medicare inpatient days. 53. The HCCB has provided that "percentage Medicare days be considered in grouping hospitals. Consideration of this variable has not been shown to be arbitrary and capricious. 4. Average daily census. 53. The HCCB has provided that "average occupied beds" is to be considered in grouping hospitals. It does not appear that this variable's use was proper, as discussed, infra. 5. Geographic differences. The HCCB has provided that geographic differences be considered in grouping hospitals by providing for the inclusion of the Florida price level index, by county, and median income, by county, as variables to be considered. The only thing that the evidence established with regard to these variables was that they are not "very good" predictors, that "if" they are intended as a measure of input prices they are "poor substitutes," and that there may be "better" measures of the cost of doing business. The evidence does not, however, show that the use of these variables is arbitrary and capricious. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning geographic influences in part II, H of its proposed order. The proposed findings of fact begin on page 29 and end on page 33. Most of these proposed findings of fact are not made in this Final Order because they are not deemed relevant or material and are unnecessary to the resolution of this proceeding. The proposed findings of fact contained in part II, H of Mercy's proposed order purportedly show that the HCCB has inadequately accounted for geographic influences. The evidence does establish that the financial characteristics of Florida hospitals and GRAA are affected by the geographic location of a hospital. This is especially true in Florida because of the impact on parts of the State from tourism, language barriers, the number of elderly residents, the available labor markets, and competition. It is also true that the combined weights of the two geographic variables the HCCB has selected for consideration in the grouping methodology--the Florida price level index and median income--is only one-seventh of the combined weights of all the HCCB's variables. It is also true that the grouping methodology results in hospitals from different areas of the State being grouped together, i.e., Mercy's hospital group includes twenty- three hospitals, four of which are located in Dade County and three of which are located in Escambia County. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the HCCB has been arbitrary and capricious in designating only two variables to take into account geographic differences between hospitals. The evidence also does not support a conclusion that it was not proper for the HCCB to limit the weight of the geographic variables to one-seventh of the total weight of the variables. Nor does the evidence demonstrate that the inclusion of hospitals from different areas of the State in the same group is not a proper result just because geographic influences are important. The fact that a large percentage of Dade County and south Florida hospitals do not qualify for automatic approval of their budgets under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), because they are in the upper 20th and the upper 50th to 79th percentiles does not necessarily prove that geographic influences have not been adequately accounted for either, as suggested be Mercy on page 30 of its proposed order. The evidence simply does not support such a conclusion. Nor does it necessarily follow that because Dade County hospitals are "efficient" in the minds of some of Mercy's witnesses and yet are unable to achieve automatic approval of their budgets that the grouping methodology does not adequately account for geographic influences, as suggested by Mercy on pages 30 and 31 of its proposed order. First, the Legislature has provided that factors other than geographic differences are to be considered, which the HCCB has provided for. It may therefore be that some Dade County hospitals do not achieve automatic approval of their budgets because of the other variables. The fact that not all Dade County hospitals fail to achieve automatic approval of their budgets supports such a conclusion. Also, even though a hospital's budget is not automatically approved it does not necessarily mean that it is considered inefficient. If that were the case, its budget would probably be subject automatically to amendment or disapproval. That is not the case. If a hospital's budget is not automatically approved its budget is subject to further review under Section 395.509(5), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). It may still be determined that the hospital is "efficient" based upon this review. The Legislature, in enacting Part II of Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, did indicate that it intended to promote competition and efficiency among hospitals in order to contain hospital costs. Section 395.5025, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The grouping methodology and, in particular, the comparison of hospitals' GRAA under Section 395.509(2), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not alone achieve that intent. Therefore the opinion of several of Mercy's witnesses that Dade County hospitals and in particular, Mercy, are efficient does not support a conclusion that the methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic influences are not adequately considered. On pages 31 and 32 of its proposed order, Mercy suggests that Dade County hospitals only compete with other Dade County hospitals and therefore grouping hospitals from all sections of the State is illogical. In support of this suggestion, Mercy proposes findings of fact to the effect that the HCCB has recognized that consumers are interested in comparing hospital charges on a regional basis and has provided information about hospital cost on a county-by- county basis in the past. Mercy's proposed findings of fact are not accepted for essentially the same reasons that its proposed findings of fact with regard to the efficiency of hospitals were rejected. These proposed findings of fact do not support a finding that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious or that geographic differences have not been adequately taken into account. Mercy's has also proposed findings of fact with regard to geographic differences to the effect that after the Legislature specifically required that "geographic differences" be considered in an amendment to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes (1981), in 1982, the HCCB has not added any additional geographic factors to be considered. Although no additional geographic variables have been added, geographic variables have been reviewed and have been changed since 1982. More importantly, these proposed findings of fact do not prove that the existing variables are not adequate. 6. Case Mix. 66. Case mix is to be taken into account "when available." The evidence does not establish that case mix is available at this time. 7. Other variables. The HCCB is not limited to a consideration of the factors which the Legislature specifically provided are to be considered. Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The only other variable the HCCB has provided for consideration is "number of residents." No evidence of significance concerning this variable was presented at the hearing. There was testimony at the hearing that there are other variables which would be appropriate for consideration in grouping hospitals. The evidence does not, however, establish that failure to consider other variables means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman opined that he had determined that the variables selected by the HCCB were not appropriate. Dr. Zimmerman based his opinion upon the fact that he had conducted a "multiple regression analysis." According to Dr. Zimmerman, a "multiple regression analysis is a statistical procedure used to evaluate the relationship of a given set of independent, predictor variables (the HCCB's seven variables) to a single dependent variable (GRAA)." Based upon his application of multiple regression analysis, Dr. Zimmerman concluded that three of the variables used in the HCCB's grouping methodology are not statistically significant predictors of GRAA: available services, average occupied beds and median income. Two of these variables (available services and average occupied beds) are required by Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), to be taken into account in the grouping methodology. These Sections also require that geographic factors, which median income is, be taken into account. This does not, however, mean that median income must be included as a variable by the HCCB. Dr. Meeter testified that the statistical significance of the HCCB's variables can be determined by the use of "log transformation." Based upon Dr. Meeter's use of log transformation, median income and available services are statistically significant variables; average occupied beds is not statistically significant. Although the HCCB was required to include "average daily census" as a factor in grouping hospitals, the HCCB was not required to use "average occupied beds." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's and Dr. Meeter's testimony, the use of average occupied beds as a variable was not proper. Whether the use of available services and median income as variables was proper depends upon whether log transformation is a proper method of determining the statistical significance of variables. Although the evidence on this question was in conflict, it appears that the use of log transformation was proper. The inclusion of available services and median income is therefore not arbitrary and capricious. A second problem with the variables used by the HCCB suggested by Dr. Zimmerman involves the correlation between the seven predictor variables or "multicollinearity." The existence of multicollinearity can invalidate a clustering program. Dr. Zimmerman determined that the correlation between the physician mix, available services and average occupied beds variables and between the Florida price level index and median income variables is large enough that there is a "potential" problem. Dr. Zimmerman's determination that there is a "potential" problem was made through two techniques. He first used "paired correlation." Based upon paired correlation, Dr. Zimmerman used a "rule of thumb" that a paired correlation of 0.7 or higher should be looked at closer. Finding a paired correlation between physician mix, available services and average occupied beds of .74 and between the Florida price level index and median income of .71, Dr. Zimmerman then calculated "R squared" to determine if a potential problem did in fact exist. Dr. Zimmerman indicated that the calculation of R squared is the most highly recommended method of determining if multicollinearity is a problem but agreed there are other methods of making such a determination. Dr. Meeter indicated that Dr. Zimmerman's rule of thumb that based upon paired correlations of 0.7 or higher indicates the problem should be looked at more closely is too strict. Other than Dr. Zimmerman's "experience" (which according to Dr. Zimmerman, consisted of a class he took), Dr. Zimmerman did not cite any authority which supported his rule of thumb. The only other source Dr. Zimmerman referred to--the "SPSS" manual--only indicates that the .82-1.0 range indicates that extreme collinearity exists. Another problem raised by Dr. Meeter with Dr. Zimmerman's conclusions as to multicollinearity, involves the use of "variance inflation factors" (hereinafter referred to as VIF is another technique used by statisticians to determine if multicollinearity is a problem. Dr. Zimmerman did not look at VIF. VIF can be determined by transforming R squared: VIF 1/1- R2. A VIF in excess of 5 or 10 is an indication that multicollinearity exists. One source quoted by Dr. Meeter even indicates that a much higher VIF is necessary to conclude that multicollinerity exists. Transforming Dr. Zimmerman's R squared calculations indicates that VIF is in excess of 5 in only one instance. As discussed more fully, infra, Dr. Zimmerman used a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals which he designated as "Schemes." Based upon Dr. Zimmerman's "Scheme 3," Dr. Zimmerman found an R squared value of .819. The VIF for an R squared value of .819 is in excess of 5. Scheme 3, however, is not an application of the HCCB's grouping methodology; it is a grouping methodology in which the variables are assigned different weights. As indicated by Dr. Meeter, the weights used in grouping can effect the correlation of the variables. Therefore, the fact that Scheme 3 indicates a possible multicollinearity problem does not prove that multicollinearity is in fact a problem with the HCCB's grouping methodology. Based upon the foregoing it is found that multicollinearity does not exist sufficiently to conclude that the variables used by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Zimmerman only testified that there was a "potential" problem. Additionally, although multicollinearity may invalidate a clustering program, the evidence does not prove that the HCCB's clustering program is in fact invalid because of any existing "potential" problem. In light of the foregoing findings of fact, it is clear that the HCCB's variables are appropriate with the exception of average occupied beds. The fact that this one variable is not statistically significant, however, does not by itself support a finding that the grouping methodology is inappropriate. The Lack of Testing of the Grouping Methodology. A third point raised by Mercy is entitled "Lack of Testing" in its proposed order and includes several proposed findings of fact on pages 17 and 18 of Mercy's proposed order. Mercy has essentially proposed findings of fact that: (1) it had been recommended to the HCCB when it originally adopted its grouping methodology in 1980 that a statistician be hired to test the grouping methodology; (2) that the failure to do so had been criticized in the past; that it had been recommended that the HCCB obtain assistance of individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate the grouping process but had failed to do so; (4) that the HCCB had not, until just prior to the hearing of this case, hired a statistician; (5) that the HCCB has not used multiple regression analysis or within-cluster co- variance weighting; and, (6) that the State of Washington's State Hospital Commission has employed a statistician to test its methodology and has effectively been advised by individuals knowledgeable with Washington's hospital characteristics. These proposed findings of fact do not establish that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious even if they were all correct findings of fact. All that these proposed findings of fact show is that the HCCB may not have gone about the adoption of its grouping methodology in the most appropriate manner. Any such shortcomings, based upon 20/20 hindsight, in the manner in which the methodology was adopted do not prove that the grouping methodology itself is not appropriate. Additionally, the evidence does not support all of these proposed findings. In particular, as was discussed, supra, the HCCB did in fact look to individuals knowledgeable in Florida hospital characteristics to evaluate its grouping methodology. The Weight of the Variables. The most significant and troublesome challenge made by Mercy to the HCCB's grouping methodology involves the weights assigned to the variables considered in grouping hospitals. The weights assigned by the HCCB to the seven HCCB variables are: Variable Weight Endogenous: Average occupied beds. 1.0 Available services. 2.0 Physician mix. 0.5 Number of residents. 0.5 Percent Medicare days. 2.0 Exogenous: Florida price level index. 0.5 Personal income. 0.5 The determination of whether the weights selected by the HCCB are arbitrary and capricious depends largely upon the evidence presented at the hearing by those witnesses knowledgeable in the field of statistics. Three witnesses were qualified as experts in statistically related fields. All three were well qualified in their fields and were credible and persuasive. According to Dr. Zimmerman, "the weights used currently by the HCCB are clearly inappropriate." In Mercy exhibit 17, Dr. Zimmerman reaches the following conclusion with regard to the HCCB's variable weights: These weights clearly do not reflect the relationship of the various variables to GRAA and thus appear as arbitrary and inappropriate for use in clustering hospitals on the basis of cost-related variables. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion is based upon the use of "multiple regression analysis," which, according to Mercy exhibit 17, "assesses the relationship of each of the predictor variables to the dependent measure (GRAA)." The evidence, however, does not support a finding of fact that multiple regression analysis is the only statistically valid method of establishing weights to be used in clustering analysis. In fact, there are a number of statistically valid methods of establishing variable weights. One of those acceptable methods is the "subjective" method which was used by the HCCB. Doctors Meeter and Fox substantiated this finding of fact. The use of the subjective method involves the participation of individuals knowledgable in the Florida hospital industry in reviewing and commenting on the weights used. The evidence clearly supports a finding that individuals with such knowledge participated in the process of developing the HCCB's grouping methodology including the selection of variable weights. Even one of Mercy's witnesses provided testimony which supports this conclusion: Mr. Kenneth G. McGee testified that "[i] t was just a trial and error process of changing weights until we ended up with something that people considered more reasonable than what had been produced in the past." Mercy has questioned Dr. Meeter's testimony with regard to the use of the subjective method of weighting variables based upon a number of proposed findings of fact. First, Mercy has proposed findings of fact to the effect that Dr. Meeter indicated that the subjective method is "bad" if not carefully applied. What Dr. Meeter actually said was that any method should be applied carefully. Secondly, Mercy has proposed a finding of fact that in a book relied upon by Dr. Meeter in rendering his opinion about the subjective method--John Hardigan's 1975 book, Clustering Algorithms--the author describes the subjective method as an "unsatisfactory" one. What Dr. Meeter's testimony proves is that Hardigan's comment was a tongue- in-cheek comment that there are several appropriate methods of weighting variables all of which are unsatisfactory, including regression analysis (used by Dr. Zimmerman) and the subjective method (use by the HCCB). Dr. Meeter also relied upon other statistical literature in rendering his opinion as to the use of the subjective method in determining variable weights. Finally, Mercy has suggested that Dr. Meeter did not undertake any independent "statistical" analysis which would support his opinions. Based upon the nature of Dr. Meeter's testimony, it does not appear that such a statistical analysis is a prerequisite to concluding that the use of the subjective method is an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Mercy has proposed a finding that the subjective method of weighting is inappropriate based upon Dr. Zimmerman's testimony. Dr. Zimmerman was asked the following questions and gave the following responses concerning the subjective method: Q Now, in your understanding of how the Board arrived at its weights, is it your opinion that that is totally inappropriate methodology for clustering? Yes or no or maybe? A I am looking to counsel for counsel here. MR. PARKER: Do you understand the questions? THE WITNESS: I do understand the question. And let me give you my full answer as I best understand it. The weights -- and I think what I have commented on at great length -- the weights used by the Hospital Cost Containment Board are clearly on statistical grounds inappropriate. There's no question about that. BY MR. COLLETTE: Now, on these clustering grounds, you testified as to your familiarity with clustering grounds, on clustering grounds, are they totally inappropriate? A If the question is -- I wouldn't say that. Hearing that there is no objection, I will continue. I would rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as a final solution for cluster analysis. I think it might be one that would be considered at a very early step, but never used, as kind of a preliminary idea. However, I would clearly rule out the use of a purely subjective weighting scheme as something to be proud of and actually put into application. So, if that means yes to your question, I guess yes in that specific way. Dr. Zimmerman's responses are not totally clear with regard to whether the subjective method is, in his opinion, an acceptable method of determining variable weights. Nor would his response, if totally clear, overcome the weight of the evidence in support of a conclusion that the HCCB's method of determining variable weights is not arbitrary and capricious. Alternative Methods of Grouping Hospitals. Mercy has proposed a number of findings of fact under a section of its proposed order entitled "Alternative Variables and Weights Indicated by Statistical Analyses." Pages 22 to 29 of Mercy's proposed order. Some of the proposed findings included therein have been dealt with in other portions of this Final Order, including those findings of fact dealing with the use of multiple regression analysis and multicollinearity. In Dr. Zimmerman's report (Mercy exhibit 17) and during his testimony a number of alternative methods of grouping hospitals were tested and evaluated. Dr. Zimmerman concluded that a number of these alternative methods would be preferable to the methodology adopted by the HCCB. Dr. Zimmerman tested twelve different methods (referred to as "Schemes" by Dr. Zimmerman): the HCCB's, the State of Washington's and ten other methods which used some or all of the seven variables designated by the HCCB. Scheme 3 used all seven variables selected by the HCCB but with different weights. Dr. Zimmerman rejected this scheme because of multicollinearity. In Scheme 4, Dr. Zimmerman used only the four variables which he found to be statistically significant: physician specialties mix, number of residents, percent Medicare days and the Florida price level index. Dr. Zimmerman recognized that this Scheme was not acceptable because of the statutory mandate as to the types of factors which must be taken into account. In order to recognize the requirement of Sections 395.507(2) and 395.509(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), that certain variables be taken into account and to alleviate the purported multicollinearity problem, Dr. Zimmerman combined the variables he considered highly correlated into two "scales." "Scale 1" combined physician specialties mix, available services and average occupied beds and "Scale 2" combined the Florida price level index and median income. The weights assigned to these scale were based upon the weights Dr. Zimmerman felt were more appropriate as discussed, supra. Dr. Zimmerman then used multiple regression analysis and a variety of combinations of variables and Scales in Schemes 6-12. Of these Schemes, Dr. Zimmerman testified that Schemes 6 and 10 were preferable, if Scheme 4 could not be used. Scheme 6 involved the use of all of the variables: percent Medicare days, number of residents and Scales 1 and 2. Scheme 10 involved the use of all of the variables except median income: percent Medicare days, number of residents, the Florida price level index and Scale 1. Dr. Zimmerman compared the results of using the HCCB's grouping methodology to the results from using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. The results showed that more Dade County hospitals had GRAA's, in comparison to the hospitals in the resulting groups under Schemes 3,4,6 and 10, which would result in automatic approval of their budgets than under the HCCB's methodology. Mercy's position within its group also improved as a result of using Schemes 3,4,6 and 10. These proposed findings of and Mercy's proposed findings of fact concerning alternatives considered by Dr. Meeter do not prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. As found, supra, six of the seven variables selected by the HCCB are reasonable. The weights assigned to those variables have also been found to be reasonable and Mercy's suggested findings of fact with regard to multicollinearity have been rejected. Mercy has failed to prove that the HCCB's grouping methodology is arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, any alternative methods or Schemes and the results of using such methods cannot and do not overcome such findings. Conclusions. Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that the bases for the opinions that the HCCB's grouping methodology is inappropriate are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Dr. Zimmerman's opinion, which was based upon a number of conclusions, was only supported by the fact that one of the variables selected by the HCCB is not proper. The evidence, however, does not support a finding that this fact alone means that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is inappropriate. The facts do not support a conclusion that the grouping methodology adopted by the HCCB is arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence presented the following facts are found: Petitioners each made application for a certificate of need under the provisions of Sections 381.493 through 381.497, Florida Statutes, 1975, which applications were submitted to the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities and accepted as complete by the bureau. Each application seeks a certificate of need for a third generation computerized axial tomography scanner (whole body unit) hereinafter referred to as a CAT scanner. There is presently in Jacksonville a head scanner installed at St. Vincent Hospital in November, 1975, and a whole body scanner at St. Luke's Hospital which has been in full operation since January, 1976. All three Petitioners are located in Jacksonville, Florida. The applications were processed by the appropriate Health Systems Agency. After due consideration the Health Systems Agency recommended that each of the three applications be granted. At the request of the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the State Hospital Advisory Council reviewed the applications and upheld the Health Systems Agency's determination that the three applications should be granted certificates of need. After consideration of the applications, the Health Systems Agency's recommendation the State Hospital Advisory Council's recommendation, Mr. Art Forehand, Administrator, Office of Community Medical Facilities, Respondent herein, notified each of the three Petitioners that their applications were not favorably considered. Mr. Forehand's notification set forth three reasons for the unfavorable consideration. Those were (1) lack of demonstrated need for the requested scanner, (2) failure of each application to demonstrate positive action toward containment of cost for services rendered to the public, and (3) lack of demonstrated unavailability, unaccessability, and inadequacy of like services within the Jacksonville area. At the time of his decision Mr. Forehand had no material or information available to him which was not available to the Health Systems Agency or the State Hospital Advisory Council at the time of their decision. At the time the three applications were denied Mr. Forehand felt that there did exist a need for one additional scanner in the Jacksonville area but he did not feel that he should bear the burden of deciding which one of the three applications should be granted and therefore all three were denied. Except for those matters set forth in Mr. Forehand's denial and noted above, none of the parties to this proceeding disputed that the criteria for determining need found in Section 101-1.03(c), F.A.C., were met. A study of computerized axial tomography with suggested criteria for review of certificate of need applications was conducted by the staff of the Health Systems Agency of Northeast Florida relative to the Duval County area. This study was published in April of 1976 and its findings appear to have been accepted by the Health Systems Agency. As one of its suggested criteria for determining need it found that a hospital or applicant should have a potential case load of at least 1,000 CAT scans per year. The study went on to project a potential case load for the three Petitioners herein. That projection for Baptist Memorial Hospital shows a a potential case load of 2,512 scans per year. The study noted that Baptist Memorial projected 1,300 scans for the first year during start up operations and 2,080 scans during the second and third years of their forecast. The study found that Riverside Hospital has a potential case load of 1,196 scans per year compared to their own projections of 1,432 scans per year. The study finally found that the University Hospital has a potential case load of 1,558 scans per year compared to their projection of 2,904. Testimony on behalf of the Respondent shows that in the opinion of Respondent full use of a CAT scanner is 10 scans per day on a 20-day work month working five days a week. As shown by unrebutted testimony the existing scanner at St. Luke's Hospital in Jacksonville is presently averaging 10 scans per day, five-days a week. Further, according to the evidence presented by Respondent, the existing scanner at St. Vincent is being utilized to at least 85 percent of its capacity. Respondent took the position at the hearing that when existing scanners are being used to 85 percent or more of their capacity a need exists for more equipment. Thus, it appears that using the criteria of utilization adhered to by Respondent, the existing CAT scanners in Jacksonville are being utilized to the extent that there is a need for additional scanners. University Hospital has 310 licensed beds and is the community hospital in Duval County with the responsibility of serving the indigent on an emergency and short term basis. It is the trauma center of the city and has the most active emergency room. It is also the major teaching hospital in Duval County. Respondent agrees that it has the greatest need of any hospital in Duval County for a CAT scanner. The University Hospital has approximately 300 visits per month to its emergency room. In the four months prior to the date of final hearing the hospital did 586 skull x-rays due to trauma. In the case of acute trauma patients frequently may not be moved from one hospital to another for the purpose of a CAT scan nor, in some cases, should other dangerous invasive techniques be used for diagnosis. Baptist Hospital has 567 licensed beds and is a major oncology center or cancer center and does a large amount of surgical cancer work in additional to radiation therapy. With the possible exception of University Hospital, Baptist Hospital is the largest pediatric hospital in the area. According to the testimony of the administrator of the hospital it would take 14 to 18 months after receipt of a certificate of need to have a CAT scanner in service. Riverside Hospital has 183 licensed beds. The hospital has been a specialty hospital since its establishment in 1908 and serves the Riverside Clinic. The hospital has approximately 200 specialized physicians, all board certified, on-staff. Riverside is a unique hospital because of its degree of specialty and its relationship to Riverside Clinic. Riverside Hospital does 100 percent of the Riverside Clinic's radiology work. Riverside Hospital has been known as an established diagnostic center. Witnesses for Riverside Hospital testified that if they were not able to have a CAT scanner their reputation and ability to provide first class service would be seriously diminished. CAT scanners represent a significant development in diagnostic medicine. They reduce the need for many dangerous, painful and costly injections of dye, air and radioactive isotopes required by some of the more traditional diagnostic procedures. The three most common tests displaced by CAT scanners are pneumoencephalography, angiography and radioactive isotope scanning. The first two of the foregoing are particularly expensive procedures and require hospitalization. At present, patients at the three Petitioner hospitals have to be transported to another facility in order to use a scanner. The transfer of an inpatient to another hospital for a scan may effectively consume the better part of a patient's day and may require an extra day of hospitalization. The cost of transportation, increased hospital stay and ancillary matters increase the actual cost to the Patient. Patients suffering from severe trauma or otherwise in a critical state, may not be transported out of a hospital to a scanner. All three of the Petitioners have an active neurological and neurosurgical staff and qualified radiologists. The unrebutted testimony indicates that, although CAT scanners are a new development whose potential has not yet been fully explored and whose development may not yet be final, they nevertheless have become an essential diagnostic tool of regular use.
