The Issue Whether Rule 59C-1.036 constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and; Whether the Agency's application form and scoring system utilized in the review of nursing home batch certificate of need applications constitute rules of the Agency as the term "rule" is defined in Section 120.52(16), employed in violation of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes (1993) and; Whether the disputed form and scoring system constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The disputed rule in this case is Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, which provides in pertinent part: The community nursing home beds subject to the provisions of this rule include beds licensed by the agency in accordance with Chapter 400, Part I, Florida Statutes, and beds licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, which are located in a distinct part of a hospital that is Medicare certified as a skilled nursing unit. All proposals for community nursing home beds will be comparatively reviewed consistent with the requirements of Subsection 408.39(1), Florida Statutes, and consistent with the batching cycles for nursing home projects described in paragraph 59C-1.008(1)(l), Florida Administrative Code. The challenged rule is entitled "Community Nursing Home Beds," and also includes the "need methodology" for determining the need for community nursing home beds and specifically: regulates the construction of new community nursing home beds, the addition of new community nursing home beds, and the conversion of other health care facility bed types to community nursing home beds... Also pertinent to this case, the challenged rule provides: The Agency will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any agency service subdistrict if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that agency subdistrict to exceed the numeric need for community nursing home beds, as determined consistent with the methodology described in paragraphs (2)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of this rule. The challenged rule has the effect of, among other things, requiring nursing homes and hospitals who seek to operate skilled nursing facility beds to file applications for community nursing home beds in the same batching cycle, compete against each other for those beds in nursing home subdistricts and be subject to the need methodology applicable to nursing home beds. The Agency has not developed a need methodology specifically for Medicare certified distinct part skilled nursing units. In 1980, the Agency's predecessor, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, attempted to promulgate rules with the same effect of the rules challenged in this case. In Venice Hospital, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 14 FALR 1220 (DOAH 1990) 1/ the Hearing Officer found the challenged rule in that case to be invalid and concluded, as a matter of law, that, with respect to the previous proposed rule: The competent, substantial evidence shows that these proposed rules are not reasonable or practical and will lead to an illogical result. There exists an inadequate factual or legal basis to support the forced inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing beds into the community nursing bed inventory. In the 1990 challenge to the previously proposed rule, the Hearing Officer concluded that the proposed rule in question was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, but also found that, from a health planning standpoint, reasons existed for and against the inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. In the instant proceedings, the Agency concedes that the challenged rule and the previous proposed rule are substantially identical. In this case, the parties defending the challenged rule presented several facts, many of which seek to establish changed circumstances since 1990, as evidence of a rational basis for the inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units within the nursing home bed inventory. Facts Established Which Arguably Support the Validity of the Challenged Rule Although the term "subacute care" does not have a generally accepted definition, this term is often applied to that care provided patients in skilled nursing units. Subacute care is an emerging and developing area of care which covers patients whose medical and clinical needs are higher than would be found in a traditional nursing home setting, but not so intense as to require an acute medical/surgical hospital bed. Subacute care is a level of care that is being developed to bridge a gap between hospital and traditional nursing home care and to lower the cost of care to the health delivery system. Both hospitals and nursing homes operate Medicare-certified distinct part skilled nursing facility units. The same criteria, including admissions criteria, staffing requirements and reimbursement methodologies, apply to such skilled nursing units, in hospitals and freestanding nursing homes. The patient population served in such units is primarily a population which comes to either a hospital or nursing home-based unit from an acute care hospital stay. This population group has a short length of stay in the Medicare distinct part unit and can be rehabilitated within a certain period of time. Skilled nursing units in hospitals and those in freestanding nursing homes are competing for the same patient population. Both hospitals and nursing homes are aggressively entering the subacute care market. There are some nursing homes which provide a level of subacute care equal to that provided by hospitals. As a general rule, the staffing, clinical programs, patient acuity and costs of care for patients do not substantially vary between skilled nursing units in hospitals and such units in freestanding nursing homes. In the past two or three years, the number of Florida nursing homes which compete for skilled unit patients has increased. In applications for skilled nursing unit beds, the services proposed by hospitals and those proposed by nursing homes are generally similar. Medicare-certified distinct part units in both freestanding nursing homes and hospitals are certified to provide the same nursing services. The types of services and equipment provided by hospital skilled nursing units and nursing home skilled nursing units are similar. There has been an increase in subacute care in the past five years. The average length of stay for patients treated in Medicare-certified distinct part nursing units in hospitals and in such units located in freestanding nursing homes is similar. The federal eligibility requirement for Medicare patients in hospital- based and in freestanding nursing home distinct part skilled nursing units are the same. Some skilled nursing units which are located in nursing homes have historically received patient referrals from hospitals. When these referring hospitals develop distinct part Medicare certified skilled nursing units, the nursing home skilled nursing units tend to experience a decline in occupancy. Uniform need methodology is developed in part based upon demographic characteristics of potential patient population. Nursing home bed need methodology utilizes changes in population by age groups over age 65 to project need for beds. Both hospital-based skilled nursing units and nursing home-based units serve substantial numbers of Medicare-eligible patients who are 65 years of age and older. Population health status is also utilized in developing uniform need methodologies. The health status of service population for Medicare units in freestanding nursing homes is, as a general rule, the same as the health status of population served in such units located in hospitals. The intent behind the process of reviewing CON applications from hospitals seeking skilled nursing unit beds and nursing homes seeking such beds is to reduce the risk of overbedding and duplication of services. Overbedding and duplication of services have the tendency to result in excessive costs and can result in deterioration of quality of care. Medicare admissions to nursing homes and Medicare revenue to nursing homes have increased in the past several years. Data also indicates that nursing homes are beginning to provide more intensive care for patients in skilled nursing units. The prevalence of freestanding nursing home Medicare-certified skilled nursing units has substantially increased in the past three years and this growth trend is expected to continue. Facts Established Which Demonstrate That the Challenged Rule Should be Declared Invalid The challenged rule requires a hospital seeking Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds to be comparatively reviewed with nursing home applications seeking all types of nursing home beds. There is no separate nursing home licensure bed category for skilled nursing unit beds. The Agency's inventories of freestanding nursing home beds do not identify Medicare-certified skilled nursing beds. Once an applicant to construct a nursing home opens the nursing home, the applicant does not need a separate CON to designate beds as a Medicare- certified skilled nursing unit. According to the AHCA's own witness, a freestanding nursing home can internally change its categories at any time without CON review. Pursuant to statute and agency rule, however, hospitals must obtain a CON to change the category of even one bed. 2/ Although a hospital seeking hospital licensed Medicare-certified skilled nursing beds is compelled by Rule 59C-1.036(1), Florida Administrative Code, to compete against all nursing home applicants and all nursing home beds in a batched review, it faces totally different standards of construction, operation and staffing after approval. Rule 59C-1.036(2), Florida Administrative Code, is the nursing home bed need formula. This formula does not result in an estimate of need for skilled nursing unit beds and projects need for total community nursing home beds only. There is currently no bed need methodology (hospital or nursing home) to ascertain the need for Medicare certified skilled nursing unit beds. The Agency's inventories of freestanding nursing home beds do not separately identify Medicare-certified skilled nursing home beds in nursing homes. All that is shown is whether the beds are "community nursing home beds" or "sheltered nursing home beds." The Agency has not established how, under this inventory and regulatory scheme, it controls overbedding in Medicare- certified skilled nursing units within a specific district or subdistrict since the only such beds shown on the inventories are those in hospitals. It is unreasonable and illogical to compare the need for hospital- based Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds with the need for all community nursing home beds. Under the present circumstances a reasonable comparison might be drawn between need for hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds and freestanding nursing home skilled nursing unit beds, but the AHCA rules do not currently provide for such a comparison. Determining the need for hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds by comparing such beds to all nursing unit beds constitutes poor health planning. Such hospital-based skilled nursing units do not provide similar services to similar patients when compared to all community nursing home beds and it is neither logical or reasonable to comparatively review the need for such services. The challenged rule also requires hospital applicants for skilled nursing unit beds to compete with nursing homes within the nursing home subdistrict. The Agency by rule divides districts differently for nursing homes than for hospitals. Thus, some hospitals' skilled nursing unit beds are comparatively reviewed against nursing home beds of all kinds and against hospital skilled nursing beds which are not within the same hospital subdistrict. As a general statement, the treatment profiles for patients in Medicare-certified skilled nursing units in hospitals and those for patients in nursing homes skilled nursing units are similar. There is, however, a distinct part of such patient population which must be treated in a setting which provides immediate access to emergency care. The provision of immediate emergency care is not typically available in nursing homes and nursing home patients in need of such care usually have to be readmitted to hospitals. Care available in hospitals (physicians and registered nurses on duty at all times, laboratory and radiation services available on premises) is sufficiently different to demonstrate that Medicare-certified skilled nursing units are not comparable to such units in freestanding nursing homes in all aspects. This distinction is clearly significant to patients who need emergency services because of age, multiple illnesses, and other conditions. Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, is the hospital licensure statute. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, provides: The Agency shall issue a license which specifies the service categories and the number of hospital beds in each category for which a license is received. Such information shall be listed on the face of the license. All which are not covered by any specialty-bed-need methodology shall be specified as general beds. The Agency equates "acute care" beds with general beds. By rule, the Agency has excluded from the definition of "acute care bed": neonatal intensive care beds comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds hospital inpatient psychiatric beds hospital inpatient substance abuse beds beds in distinct part skilled nursing units, and beds in long term care hospitals licensed pursuant to Part I, Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. By Agency rule, a hospital specialty need methodology exists for all categories of hospital beds excluded from the acute care bed definition except category (e) beds in distinct part skilled nursing units and (f) long term care beds. The Agency is currently drafting a specialty hospital bed need methodology for long term care beds. The only licensed bed category for which the Agency has developed no specialty bed need methodology (existing or in process) is hospital beds in distinct part skilled nursing units. At hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of Elfie Stamm who was accepted as an expert in health planning and certificate of need policy analysis. Through Ms. Stamm's testimony, the Agency attempted to establish that the numeric need methodology established by the challenged rule includes a calculation of the need for both nursing home and hospital-based distinct part skilled nursing units. This testimony was not persuasive on this point. Indeed, Ms. Stamm acknowledged that the disputed rule does not result in an estimate of need for skilled nursing units or beds. The parties to this proceeding have attempted to establish that Medicare admission statistics in Florida support either the validity or invalidity of the challenged rule. Based upon the Medicare-related statistical data placed in the record in this case, it is more likely than not that, as of 1992, in excess of 90 percent of utilization of hospital-based skilled nursing units is Medicare covered and that the percentage of Medicare (as opposed to Medicaid) patient days in all freestanding nursing home beds was only seven percent. In this respect, it is not logical or reasonable to comparatively review the need for hospital-based Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds with all community nursing home beds. 47. The Agency lists Sections 408.15(8), 408.34(3)(5), 408.39(4)(a) and 400.71(7), Florida Statutes, as specific statutory authority for the challenged rule. None of the cited statutory provisions provides specific authority for the Agency to require hospitals seeking hospital licensed beds in Medicare- certified skilled nursing units to be reviewed against all community nursing home beds. There is no evidence of record in this case of any federal law requiring such review and no evidence to suggest that Medicare reimbursement is affected by such a review one way or the other. In this case, the competent, substantial evidence shows that the disputed rule is not reasonable or rational. The Agency has not developed a specific numerical need methodology providing for a reasonable and rational basis to comparatively review the need for Medicare-certified skilled nursing unit beds in hospitals or in nursing homes. There exists an inadequate factual or legal basis to support the forced inclusion of hospital-based skilled nursing units into the inventory of all community nursing home beds. Form 1455A Agency Form 1455A and the scoring methodology are used by the Agency in the review of applications for community nursing home beds and for skilled nursing facilities within distinct parts of a hospital. Various parties in this proceeding assert the Form 1455A and the scoring methodology constitute unpromulgated rules which are invalid pursuant to Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. Any party filing a letter of intent concerning community nursing home beds receives from the Agency an application package including Form 1455A and instructions. The instructions are an integral part of the application. Also included as part of the application are 34 pages of instructions on how the Agency scores the application. Form 1455A has general applicability to all applicants for community nursing home beds and for skilled nursing home facilities within distinct parts of a hospital. Form 1455A contains numerous provisions of mandatory language which facially provides that it must be submitted with applications for CON. The Agency acknowledges that such mandatory language predated the passage of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, and considers the language obsolete. The Agency intends, in the future, to edit the form to strike "misleading language". Form 1455A is not incorporated in any rule of the Agency and has not been promulgated as a rule. Applications are reviewed based upon questions in Form 1455A. Applications are also reviewed against a numerical scoring system developed with the form. The form requires that the applicant certify that it will obtain a license to operate a nursing home. The form also requires certification that the applicant participate in Medicaid services which are not applicable to hospitals. These and other portions of the form are not rationally or reasonably related to the operation of a hospital-based distinct part skilled nursing unit. In the review and analysis of the applications at issue, a "scoring methodology" is used by the Agency. The scoring matrix is utilized to put numerous applications filed in the same agency district in perspective in terms of numerical ranking and how the applications compare to each other. The State Agency Action Report is the end product of the Agency review of the applications. The scoring system is used in the review proceedings and is utilized and included in at least some of the State Agency Action Reports. Form 1455A and the scoring methodology are utilized by the Agency in a manner that has general application and which forms significant components of a process which creates rights, and which implements, interprets, and prescribes law and Agency policy. At the final hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of Ms. Elizabeth Dudek, the Agency Chief of the Certificate of Need and budget review offices. Ms. Dudek was accepted as an expert in CON policy and procedure. Ms. Dudek provided an overview of the process whereby the challenged form and scoring system are used by the Agency in analyzing CON applications. Ms. Dudek testified that the Agency does not believe the form and scoring system meet the requirements of a rule. Ms. Dudek considers the form and system to be tools used to elicit responses in a standardized format. The fact that an application receives a high score based on the scoring matrix does not mean that the application will be approved. Ms. Dudek is of the opinion that the form and scoring system do not competitively disadvantage hospitals competing with nursing homes. Ms. Dudek cited the most recent batch cycle in which twelve hospitals were awarded distinct part nursing units, although these hospitals' applications did not receive the highest scores. Ms. Dudek's testimony was not persuasive in the above-referenced areas. As currently structured and utilized by the Agency, the form and the scoring system at issue are not reasonable or rational. There is not an adequate factual or legal basis to support the use of the form or the scoring system in analyzing applications for CON files by hospitals for distinct part Medicare-certified skilled nursing units.
The Issue Which one of three Certificate of Need applications for a new nursing facility in AHCA Nursing Home District 3 should be granted: Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc.’s; Life Health Care Resources, Inc.’s; or Arbor Health Care Company’s?
Findings Of Fact The Parties and The Applications Beverly Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc., the largest provider of nursing-home care in the nation. Beverly is proposing to construct a 120-bed freestanding nursing home in Marion County from which it proposes to provide hospice services, respite services and, for six days a week, inpatient and outpatient therapy services. The nursing home, if constructed, will contain a 16-bed Medicare unit and a 20-bed secured Alzheimer’s unit. The Beverly application is conditioned upon providing at least 55 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. In addition, Beverly proposes to provide 0.2 percent of its patient days to indigent and charity patients. Beverly proposes to provide care to residents who are HIV positive or have AIDS. If the application is approved, Beverly will contribute $10,000 to a geriatric research fund. Life Care Life Care is a new, start-up corporation formed initially for the purpose of seeking a CON for a nursing home in Hernando County. Life Care’s plan is that it be operated by Life Care Centers of America, Inc. (LCCA), a privately owned Tennessee corporation authorized to business in Florida. LCCA owns, operates, or manages over 185 nursing homes with over 22,700 beds and retirement center units in 28 states. It is the largest privately owned nursing-home company in the United States. Life Care’s application proposes construction and operation of a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County. The nursing home will include a 20-bed secured Alzheimers/dementia care unit and a state-of-the-art adult care unit. In fact, Life Care has agreed to condition approval of its application on inclusion of these two units. Additionally, it has agreed to a condition of service of Medicaid residents at the district average (69.26 percent) at least. Life Care proposes a broad range of Specialized Programs, including care of AIDS victims, respite care, and care to hospice clients and outpatient rehabilitative care. Its inpatient care will include a 20-bed Medicare unit, within which will be at least 12 beds for "subacute" services. Arbor Headquartered in Lima, Ohio, Arbor Health Care Company has 27 facilities located in five states. Twelve of the facilities are in Florida but none of its licensed facilities are in District 3. Of the twelve in Florida, eleven are JCAHO accredited, with the twelfth, newly-licensed, scheduled at the time of hearing for an accreditation survey in December of 1997. Ten of the eleven accredited facilities are also accredited for subacute care. Arbor’s accreditation record is outstanding compared to both the 600 nursing facilities in Florida, 93 of which are JCAHO accredited and 49 of which are accredited for subacute care, and the national record of accreditation of nursing home facilities in subacute care, 23 percent. This record, too, is demonstrative of Arbor’s progress in carrying out its corporate mission: to be the premier subacute provider of long-term care services. Consistent with its mission, Arbor proposes a distinct subacute unit to serve patients with digestive diseases and patients in need of ventilator therapy, infusion therapy, wound care, and cardiac therapy. In addition to subacute services, Arbor proposes to serve residents with dementia, including Alzheimer’s, by utilizing a strongly-developed, individualized- care plan with an interdisciplinary approach implemented upon admission and subject to continuous review and, if necessary, revision. Arbor's application, however, distinctly different from Beverly’s and Life Care’s, does not propose a secured Alzheimer’s unit. Arbor proposes comprehensive rehabilitation care for its patient and residents, as well as outpatient rehabilitation services for both former residents and residents throughout the community. Arbor proposes to provide 0.2 percent of all patient days for charity care and 69.26 percent of all patient days for Medicaid patients within its 104-bed long-term facility. Medicaid patients will also be served in the 16-bed subacute unit. In addition, Arbor proposes to provide, at a minimum, one percent of its patient days for hospice care, respite care, the care of AIDS patients, and the care of pediatric patients. Arbor is committed to such services, as well as the provision of both inpatient and outpatient intensive rehabilitative programs, and has agreed to condition its award of a Certificate of Need upon such commitments. Arbor is the only one of the three applicants committed to provide care and services to pediatric patients. Location Introduction The issue on which these cases turn is location within District 3. (There are other issues in this case certainly. For one reason or another, their disposition will not determine the outcome of this case. Not the least among the other issues is whether Beverly or Life Care should be favored over Arbor because they propose secured Alzheimer’s units. This issue, however important and subject to whatever quality of debate, is not dispositive because at present it has no clear answer. See Findings of Fact Nos. 43-45, below.) District 3 Comprised of 16 counties located as far north as the Georgia state line and southwest to Hernando County, District 3 is the largest AHCA Nursing Home District area-wise. The District is not divided into subdistricts for the purpose of applying the state methodology to determine numeric need of additional nursing home beds. Among the 16 counties in the district are Marion, Hernando and Citrus. The Applicant’s Proposed Locations Beverly proposes to construct its 120-bed freestanding nursing home in Marion County. The specific proposed location is south of the City of Ocala, east of State Road 200 and west of Maricamp Road. From this location, Beverly would serve primarily residents of Marion County, but would also be accessible to residents of Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties. Life Care proposes to construct its 120-bed nursing home in the Spring Hill area of Hernando County. Arbor proposes to locate its 120-bed nursing home in Citrus County. It did not propose a specific location within the County. The Best Location Conflicting qualified opinions were introduced into evidence by each of the three applicants. Each applicant, of course, presented expert testimony that its proposed location was superior to the locations proposed by the other two. In its preliminary decision, AHCA approved Arbor’s application and denied the other two. AHCA continues to favor Citrus County as the best location for a new 120-bed nursing home in District 3. At bottom, AHCA’s preliminary decision is supported by Arbor's proposal to locate in the county among Marion, Hernando and Citrus Counties with the greatest need: Citrus. This basis underlying, and therefore, the Agency’s preliminary decision, is supported by the findings of fact in paragraphs 21-35, below. Allocation of Nursing Home Beds Within AHCA Nursing Home District 3 Although the district is identified as a single entity for purposes of the state methodology utilized to determine the need for additional nursing home beds, the local planning council divides the district into geographic units or planning areas in order to specify preferences for the allocation of nursing homes within the district. The North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc., has created seven planning areas in District 3. The local health plan utilizes a priority-setting system to identify the relative importance of adding beds to specific planning areas. After establishing well-defined priorities for geographically-underserved areas and designated occupancy thresholds, the priority-setting system creates a decision matrix: the Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation (PANHAM). The matrix is based on the population at risk, bed supply (both licensed and approved), and occupancy levels within the planning area. The allocation factors in the local health plan are particularly significant with respect to District 3 in light of its lone stance among the Agency’s Nursing Home Districts as lacking a process for allocating number of beds needed to the individual subdistrict. The local health plan provides "the only road map or the only guidance" (Tr. 311) as to how to allocate beds within District 3. The local health plan bases its occupancy priorities upon both licensed and approved beds within each planning area. From a planning perspective, it is reasonable and appropriate to calculate occupancy rates based upon both licensed and approved beds in assessing the need for additional beds. The number of approved beds is a measure of how much additional capacity will be on line in the near future. To ignore the number of approved beds in the evaluation of where to allocate new beds is not a good health planning technique. The three counties in which Beverly, Life Care and Arbor propose to locate are each separate planning areas in the local health plan. Marion is Planning Area 4; Hernando and Citrus are 6 and 5, respectively. The preferences contained within the local health plan for the allocation of nursing home beds within District 3 are listed in terms of importance and priority. Allocation factors "[t]wo and three really are the basis . . . for figur[ing] out in this huge district of 16 counties, how [to] make sense of where the beds ought to go." (Tr. 312.) The first of these is for applicants proposing to develop nursing home beds in geographically-underserved areas. None of the planning areas designated by the three applicants in this proceeding meet this geographic-access priority. The second of these two allocation factors, Allocation Factor 3, assigns a number of priorities in order of significance. These priorities are based primarily upon occupancy or utilization and need determined by the number of beds per area residents of 75 years of age and older. The first priority in Allocation Factor 3 is "an acid test." (Tr. 312.) It states that no nursing home beds should be added in a planning area until the number of nursing home days, considering both licensed and approved beds, for the most recent six months is 80 percent. It is only when an applicant meets this threshold that the remaining priorities in Allocation Factor 3 are considered. If the 80-percent priority is not met in a planning area, then the area should be given no further consideration for the allocation of beds. The only planning area of the three at issue in this case which meets the 80-percent occupancy standard is Planning Area 5, Citrus County. At the time the original fixed need pool for District 3 was published for the batching cycle applicable to this case, Citrus County had 69-approved nursing home beds. Hernando County had 147 (including 27 hospital-based skilled nursing beds), and Marion County had 234 approved beds. The most recent data available at the time of hearing show no new beds in Citrus or Hernando Counties but 309 new beds approved for Marion County. Utilizing the most recent data regarding the number of licensed and approved beds in Citrus, Hernando and Marion Counties, Citrus County remains the only planning area of the three which meets or exceeds the 80 percent occupancy threshold. Assuming that the remaining priority factors contained within the PANHAM matrix are applicable, none of the three applicants received a priority ranking under the PANHAM methodology. Applying the most recent data available, however, only Citrus County is moving toward the highest priority of high need and high occupancy. Both Marion County and Hernando County are moving away from the highest priority. Excluding the two counties within District 3 which have no nursing home beds (Dixie and Union), Hernando County has the lowest bed-to-elderly population ratio in the District. Considering occupancy rates over the past three years based solely upon licensed beds, Hernando County has demonstrated a marked decrease in utilization. Thus, even though Hernando has had a growth in population and experiences a lower bed-to- population ratio than the District as a whole, there is no stress on the nursing home bed supply in Hernando County. There is, moreover, no evidence of a high need to add additional bed capacity in Hernando County. The recently opened 120-bed Beverly nursing home in Spring Hill will serve to suppress or depress the overall rate of occupancy in Hernando County, making the occupancy rate even lower. There are a number of reasons why an area that has a relatively low bed-to-population ratio may also experience low occupancy. While a county or a planning area is defined by political boundaries, people do not necessarily stay within those boundaries for nursing home services. Socio-economic factors, the quality of existing nursing home services and the existence of alternatives, such as assisted living facilities, driving times and distances, the proximity of family, all may play a role in determining occupancy rates in a particular area. With regard to Planning Area 6, Hernando County, there are five nursing homes in northern Pasco County within a 15-mile radius of the center of Spring Hill, Life Care’s proposed location. Three of the four existing nursing homes in Hernando County have had downward occupancy trends. Occupancy rate may be expected to further drop with the recently licensed 120-bed facility in Spring Hill. Marion County has far and away the highest number of approved beds and a very high ratio of approved beds to licensed beds, thus providing significant additional capacity in that planning area. While the local health plan for District 3 affords no priorities based upon data concerning patient origin, Beverly attempted to demonstrate a greater need for additional beds in Marion County, as opposed to Citrus County, through patient origin information reported in those two counties. Beverly concluded that while 99 percent of the Citrus County population placed in a nursing home seek care within Citrus County, only 78 percent of Marion County residents placed in a nursing home seek nursing home care in Marion County. A 1996 nursing home data report showed that 147 Marion County residents sought nursing home care outside of Marion County, primarily in adjacent Levy, Sumter and Citrus Counties. Beverly’s analysis fails to establish need in Marion greater than in Citrus. First, it fails to take into account the 309 approved beds which will significantly add to Marion County’s capacity. Second, Citrus County’s occupancy rates are slightly higher than Marion County’s. Third, the data relied upon by Beverly’s expert performing the analysis is incomplete in that two or three nursing homes in Marion County did not report any data regarding patient origin. And finally, there are a number of reasons, found above, for why residents of one planning area choose a nursing home in another planning area. The Extent and Quality of Services Overview The District 3 local plan expresses a preference and priority for applicants which propose specialized services to meet the needs of identified population groups. Examples of such services include care for special children, care for Alzheimer’s or dementia patients, subacute care, and adult day care. Only a small percentage of nursing home care is provided to children. Proposing such care does not in the ordinary nursing home case carry much weight. Nor was there any demonstration that there is an unmet need for pediatric nursing home services in District 3. Nonetheless, it is at least noteworthy that only Arbor proposes care for special children as part of its pediatric services; the other two do not propose pediatric care at all. Arbor is also the only applicant that demonstrated a need for subacute care in its planning area and that is committed to provide such care. Utilizing a reasonable methodology, Arbor demonstrated a need for 41 additional subacute care beds in Citrus County. Arbor’s 16-bed subacute unit is consistent with that demonstrated need. While Beverly and Life Care propose to offer skilled, short-term services, neither proposes a distinct subacute unit. Indeed, Beverly’s skilled Medicare unit will not provide subacute care or services. Life Care’s subacute "program" will be implemented only if management later verifies a community need for such a program. While Life Care proposes to offer adult day care for five clients, Life Care did not identify a need for such services in Hernando County. Each of the applicants proposes to offer services and programs for residents with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia and each intends to service AIDS patients, provide respite care, and offer rehabilitation therapy services. Given the mix of services proposed, as well as Arbor’s commitment to such services, Arbor best meets the local health plan’s priority for the provision of specialized services to meet the needs of identified population groups. Subacute Care Arbor will offer a full range of subacute services, programs, and staffing it in its quest to be a premier provider of subacute services. In contrast, neither Beverly nor Life Care demonstrated a need for subacute care in their districts. In keeping with this lack of demonstration, neither Beverly nor Life Care made any commitment to a dedicated and distinct subacute unit or the provision of such services. Care for Alzheimer’s and Dementia Patients Approximately 50 percent of residents within nursing homes suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease or some form of related dementia. All three applicants propose to serve such patients and offer specified programs and rehabilitative services to these patients. Arbor, however, differs from Beverly and Life Care in its approach to treating those with Alzheimer’s. Beverly and Life Care propose secured, dedicated Alzheimer’s units. Arbor, while clustering patients within the facility in terms of the level of care and resources which each requires, follows a policy of mainstreaming residents with Alzheimer’s within the general nursing home population. There is a difference of opinion in the health care community as to which approach is better: secured, dedicated Alzheimer’s units or mainstreaming. There are both positive and negative aspects to dedicated, secured Alzheimer’s units. And it may turn out that the positive aspects prevail ultimately. But, at present, the results of research are inconclusive. The conclusion cannot yet be drawn that a secured, dedicated unit provides a more effective manner, either from a clinical standpoint or a cost-effective standpoint, of treating and caring for Alzheimer’s or dementia patients. Medicaid Services Florida’s State Health Plan expresses a preference for applicants proposing to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Since District 3 is not divided into subdistricts, the applicable comparison is the average District Medicaid utilization: 69.26 percent at the time the applications were filed. Beverly proposes to offer only 55 percent of its patient days to Medicaid patients. Beverly showed that Medicaid utilization has been declining in Marion County to the point at the time of hearing that it was 58 percent. But even if it were appropriate to use Marion County as the equivalent of a subdistrict, Beverly’s commitment would not match the Marion County rate, a rate lower than the district-wide rate. Beverly does not qualify for the preference. Life Care proposes 69.5 percent of its total patient days to Medicaid patients. Life Care qualifies for the preference. Arbor proposes to commit 69.26 percent of its patient days to Medicaid residents in the 104-bed long-term unit of its facility, or a minimum of 67 long-term care beds. In addition, Arbor will dually-certify some of its Medicare-certified beds for Medicaid in its subacute unit for patients who are either admitted on Medicaid or would convert of Medicaid. Typically, an applicant’s commitment to provide a certain percentage of its patient days for services to Medicaid patients is expressed in terms of patient days for the total facility. This batching cycle, however, was unique in that AHCA created a separate subset of nursing home beds, known as short- term beds, and required that separate applications be filed by applicants proposing both long-term and short-term beds. The partition created a problem for each applicant because it set up the possibility that one of the applicant's applications (either the short-term or the long-term) would be approved and the other denied. Arbor solved the problem by considering its 104-bed long term application as an application for a stand-alone project. Beverly and Life Care did not have the problem since they do not intend to have subacute units within their proposed facility. For facilities approved by more than one CON, AHCA uses a blended rate for monitoring compliance with CON conditions. For Arbor’s application, therefore, one could argue that a blended rate of 60.03 percent, composed of 69.23 percent for 104 beds and 0 percent for the 16 subacute beds, which is the rate Arbor proposes for the entire 120-bed facility, should apply. Whether applying a blended rate or using the rate applicable to long-term beds, Arbor is entitled to the State Health Plan preference for service to Medicaid patients. Financial Feasibility With one exception, all parties stipulated that each of the three applicants propose projects that are financially feasible both immediately and on a long-term basis. The exception relates to the listing in Arbor’s application in Schedule 6 of understated proposed wages for certified occupational therapy assistants (COTAs) and licensed physical therapy assistants (LPTAs). The evidence establishes that through inadvertence, Arbor mislabeled the line item designated as COTAs and LPTAs. The item should have borne a description of therapists aides instead of licensed therapists. Had the item been correctly described, the wages listed were salary levels comparable to wages experienced in other Arbor facilities. The error is harmless. The licensed assistants, that is, the COTAs and LPTAs, were included under the therapist line items within Arbor’s Schedule 6. Thus, the total salary expenses reflected in the schedule are accurate and Arbor’s project is financially feasible in the second year of operation. Even if Arbor has misstated the total amount of salaries for therapists and aides in Schedule 6, Arbor’s project would still be financially feasible because the majority of those costs would be allocated to the Medicare unit and would be reimbursed by the Medicare program. Arbor would continue to show a profit (approximately $189,000) in the second year of operation. Arbor’s proposed project is financially feasible in both the short and long terms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The applications of Arbor Health Care Company (CON Application Numbers 8471L and 8471S) to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home facility in Citrus County be GRANTED; and the applications of Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc. (CON Applications Numbers 8484L and 8484S) and Life Care Health Resources, Inc. (CON Applications Numbers 8479L and 8479S) to construct and operate 120-bed nursing home facilities in Marion and Hernando Counties, respectively, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of February, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane D. Tremor, Esquire John L. Wharton, Esquire Rose, Sundstrom & Bentley, LLP 2548 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0810 Jay Adams, Esquire Douglas L Mannheimer, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Venice Hospital, a general acute care hospital offering 342 medical/surgical beds and 30 bed's for general psychiatric care, services a population of approximately 110,000 people in Southern Sarasota and Northern Charlotte Counties. Approximately 80% of its patients are covered by Medicare. This figure being higher than average, puts it somewhere in the top 5% of Medicare providers in Florida. The hospital's services are concentrated on geriatric patients and it is developing several programs devoted to that type of patient. It has recently received approval for nursing home development and operates a home health agency. Missing from the geriatric spectrum of services is the hospital based skilled nursing facility, (SNF), which is the subject of this action. Sarasota County currently has four med/surg hospitals, including Petitioner which is the only hospital in the Venice area. Petitioner has a licensed psychiatric unit which operates under separate rules and which is licensed separately but within the hospital cycle. The patients which are treated in that unit are of a different demographic make up than those treated in the med/surg beds and the staff which treats them is different. Petitioner completed a study of the potential need for SNF beds in the hospital which led to the conclusion being drawn by it that this service should be established. Mr. Bebee's review of the applicable rules and statutes indicated to him that the hospital could elect to designate a special care unit within the hospital without even having to go through Certificate of Need, (CON), review. A letter was submitted by the hospital to the Department on February 8, 1990, asking for an exemption from CON review for that project. Because no response to that letter was forthcoming, and because the hospital review cycle was fast coming up, on February 22, 1990, Mr. Bebee submitted a LOI to the Department seeking to convert 42 med/surg beds to a hospital based SNF facility at a cost of $310,000.00. After the LOI was sent, on February 26, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin, on behalf of the Department, responded by letter to Bebee's inquiry letter, indicating the CON review process was a necessary part of the process for Petitioner's facility, but that the LOI and application should be filed in the next nursing home batching cycle by April 30, 1990. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated March 13, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin rejected the LOI which Petitioner had submitted in the hospital cycle since, according to the Department, it was properly "reviewable under the nursing home review cycle rather than the hospital review cycle." Notwithstanding that rejection, and understanding the Department's position as to which cycle was appropriate, on March 26, 1990, Petitioner submitted its CON application for this project, modified to seek only 36 beds. By undated letter, the envelope for which was postmarked April 16, 1990, Ms. Gordon-Girvin declined to accept that application for the same reason she had rejected the LOI. Petitioner has since filed a CON application for the same project in the current nursing home cycle, on a nursing home application form. It did this to keep its options open but considers that action as being without prejudice to the application at issue. Though numerical bed need is not in issue in this proceeding, a brief discussion of general need is pertinent to an understanding of why Petitioner has applied for approval of this project. Petitioner is of the opinion that SNF beds within the hospital setting will provide better care for the patients than could be provided in a nursing home. Many of the patients in issue are receiving intravenous applications of medicines; taking antibiotics; require orthopedic therapy; or are in respiratory distress calling for ventilator or other pulmonary procedures. These patients need a continuing level of nursing care on a 24 hour basis but no longer qualify for a hospital continued length of stay. Petitioner currently has and is taking care of such patients in the facility, but would like to do so in a more organized, systematic manner which could be accomplished in a hospital based SNF. In addition, reimbursement rules dictate that patients no longer needing full hospital care but who remain in the hospital, become, in part, a cost to the hospital because no meaningful reimbursement is received for thatlevel of care. They would qualify for Medicare reimbursement, however, if the unit were designated and certified as a SNF. Medicaid does not recognize these beds as reimbursable because they are in a hospital. Certification for the hospital based SNF would be through the Health Care Financing Administration, (HCFA), and the Medicare program. To secure this certification, the hospital based unit would have to be a distinct part of the facility and not merely consist of beds scattered throughout the facility. Once certified, the unit is not referred to as a nursing home by HCFA or Medicare, but is classified as a hospital based unit. Because Petitioner sees this as a hospital project - a service that the hospital would be providing under its license, it chose to file for the approval in the hospital cycle rather than in the nursing home cycle. Bebee is familiar with the certification process for both hospitals and nursing homes. The latter is a lengthier process and is substantially different from that used for hospitals. In his opinion, it does not give the hospital based applicant the opportunity to properly justify the approval of a hospital based SNF since it deals more with the requirements of a community based facility. The nursing home form is highly structured whereas the hospital form makes it easier to identify and supply the appropriate supporting information for the project applied for. Further, Bebee does not consider the hospital based SNF bed in the same context as a community nursing home bed. The type of patient is not the same nor are the resources required to treat that patient. Petitioner has purchased a CON to construct a 120 bed community nursing home within the Venice area which will have some SNF beds in it. Nonetheless, because of the basic difference between the services, it still plans to pursue the hospital based SNF. A Florida Hospital Association study concluded that SNF in hospitals are different and there is a lack of this type of service in the hospitals throughout the state. This study, dated May, 1989, at Page 5 reads: Conversion of hospital beds to nursing home beds could improve the financial viability of hospitals, reduce purchasers' and consumers' health costs, and improve access to care for patients requiring higher levels of nursing care, [if they are needed and meet quality care requirements]. Bebee also points out that if this project is considered in the nursing home cycle rather than in the hospital cycle, it would result in a hospital competing with nursing homes which are seeking a different type of bed - community versus SNF. Current community nursing home bed need is set at 0. Petitioner's nursing home cycle application was filed under the "not normal circumstances" provision, but there may still be substantial contest. This type of litigation, he believes, adds unreasonably and unnecessarily costs and is a resultant financial burden to the hospital. Mr. Balzano, a health care consultant and Petitioner's other expert, confirmed and amplified the substance of Mr. Bebee's thesis. He compared hospital based SNFs with those in community nursing homes and found notable differences aside from the statutes and rules governing each. Petitioner's current beds are controlled under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D- 28, F.A.C. If some were converted to SNF beds under the pending application, they would still fall under the purview of that statute and rule. On the other hand, community nursing home SNF beds would be controlled by the provisions of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. There is a substantial difference between them. Other differences are: Patients in hospital based SNF beds generally have greater nursing requirements than those in SNF beds in community nursing homes. Staffing in hospital based SNF is generally higher than in free standing nursing homes. The average stay is shorter in a hospital based SNF. Patients are not there for continuing care but for restorative care. The size of a hospital based SNF unit is generally smaller than that in a free standing unit. Costs are usually greater in a hospital based SNF unit reflecting the greater needs of the patient. Therefore, reimbursement is generally higher. Health services in the different systems are different and a comparative review would be difficult. The questions in the different application forms reflect a different approach and in the nursing home application, relate to residential type care. This is not the case in the hospital form. Costs relating to the use of an existing facility would be cheaper for the hospital based unit when compared with building a new nursing home facility. However, the costs of hospital construction are usually higher than nursing home construction though the quality of construction is generally better. The operating costs for the more complex services provided in a hospital based unit are higher and Petitioner would have trouble competing if reimbursement were based on the classification as a nursing home. Higher staffing levels and higher staffing costs in a hospital based facility would act in disfavor of that facility. The state generally looks with greater favor on projects for Medicaid patients. Hospital based units are not oriented toward that group and would, therefore, not be given the same consideration, as would be a nursing home which catered to Medicaid patients. The type of patient, (residential vs. subacute) has an impact. The hospital based unit provides treatment to the more acutely ill patient. SNF patients who need that higher degree of care would get it better at a hospital based facility which has greater resources to meet patient needs. Mr. Balzano feels it is unfair to compare the two types of properties. The differences in the programs would have an impact on the issue of need when comparative review is done. A SNF in the hospital setting is different but would be compared, if the nursing home cycle were used, against the total pool of community nursing home beds even though the patients are different and their need for services are different. Need methodology looks at historical utilization. Hospital based SNF patients turn over more frequently than do community nursing home patients and the occupancy level is not as high in the hospital based setting. This would bring the average occupancy rate in an area down and could affect the need for community beds across the board. It is also noted that hospital based SNF beds would not be appropriate to house community nursing home patients who could not be accommodated in a nursing home, and vice-versa. SNF patients could normally not be appropriately treated in a community nursing home because of their greater needs. If compared in a batched review, however, they would be considered together without that distinction being made. Since all other hospital services are reviewed under the provisions of Chapter 395 parameters as hospitals, Balzano sees it as inconsistent to review hospital based SNF beds under the nursing home criteria. He can find no statutory or rule provision requiring this. The Department has drafted a proposed rule on the subject but that proposal is presently under challenge. Further, Medicare considers hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home based SNF beds as different entities with the hospital based beds earning a higher reimbursement ceiling due to the increased services and the different type of patient. According to Mr. Balzano, in Florida, hospital based SNF beds account for 1/2 of 1% of all hospital beds. Nationwide the figure is 4%. Balzano feels this is because in Florida there is no criteria to judge need against and therefore these beds are compared to all nursing home beds. He considers this wrong, especially in a state where there is such a high percentage of elderly patients. It is, in his opinion, poor health planning, and when compared against other nursing homes, the hospital based SNF unit will always be at a disadvantage. The testimony of Ms. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, Director of the Department's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, reveals the Department's rationale in its rejection of the Petitioner's LOI for the instant project and the subsequent return of its application. The application was rejected because there was no underlying LOI for the project. The LOI was initially rejected as having been filed in an inappropriate cycle, (hospital). The Department's policy, calling for applications for all extended care or hospital based skilled nursing facility beds to be filed in a nursing home batching cycle has been in place for an extended period going back before 1984. The Department looks at extended care beds and SNF beds as somewhat equivalent but different. The designation of extended care facility beds initially used by HCFA, (Medicare), in hospital situations is no longer applicable. Now, Medicare recognizes SNF beds in hospitals, but does not distinguish them from other types of hospital based beds. The service is considered the same and the patients must meet identical admissions criteria. The reasons relied upon by the Department, from a health planning standpoint, for reviewing applications for hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home cycle are: Medicare conditions of service and admission criteria are the same, and The State nursing home formula rule projects a need for all nursing home beds, (SNF and ICF) , and does not differentiate between type. Providers compete for the beds, not where they will be used or under what conditions. The mere need for special treatment such as ventilators or intravenous antibiotics is not controlling. If the patient does not need the acute care provided to hospital acute care patients, since a "subacute" status is no longer recognized by the state, it is the Department's position that that patient should be in intermediate care status. This position is incorporated in the Departments proposed rule which is currently under challenge. It had been elucidated, however, in both the 1988 and 1990 editions of HRSM 235-1, relating to Certificates of Need, where at section 9-5 in both editions the text reads: 9-5 Skilled Nursing Unite in Hospitals. Beds in skilled nursing units located in hospitals will be counted in the nursing home bed inventory, even though they retain their licensure as general medical surgical beds. In addition, the Florida State Health Plan for 1989 and for each year since 1984, has counted hospital based SNF beds in the nursing home bed inventory. The parties stipulated to that point. Ms. Gordon-Girvin admits that it is sometimes difficult for an applicant to apply for hospital based SNF beds on a nursing home application for, but claims that is as it should be. She asserts that the patients are the same, (disputed), and since, she claims, a hospital cannot provide the same services that a full service nursing home could provide, the applicants should be differentiated on the basis of services rather than patient category to justify the additional cost inherent in the hospital based setting. In short, she believes the current situation is appropriate since it requires the applicant, a hospital, to look more carefully at the terms and conditions of the services to be provided. In so far as this results in health care cost savings, her position is accepted. She also contends that the Florida Hospital Association study relied upon by Petitioner to support its position that hospital based SNF bed applications for distinct units cannot compete fairly against nursing homes in a comparative CON review, is not pertinent here considering it was prepared to examine an excess of hospital bed inventory and possible alternative uses as income sources. Regardless of the purpose of the study, absent a showing that it is unreasonably slanted or biased, its conclusions have not been successfully rebutted. Ms. Gordon-Girvin also contends that the low percentage of hospital based SNF beds as compared to total hospital beds is a positive result of the state's efforts to reduce costly services in favor of less costly alternatives. The Department has the exclusive charter to determine which services are to be reviewed and how the review is to be conducted. Even if the proposed rule formalizing the procedure questioned here is stricken, the policy currently being utilized by the Department would still be valid and appropriate. Psychiatric, substance abuse, and rehabilitation beds in hospital inventories are considered distinct from acute care beds, but are still classified as hospital beds because there are no reasonable alternatives for treatment of those conditions. With regard to those patients using hospital based SNF beds, however, the Department claims there is an alternative, the community nursing home based SNF beds. In further support of the Department's position, Amy M. Jones, the Department's Assistant Secretary for Health Care Facilities and an expert in facility licensing and certification in Florida, pointed our that the Department treats hospital based SNF beds and community nursing home SNF beds the same because: conditions of participation are the same and the Department wants to look at and compare similar activities in the same cycle, and pertinent statutes and rules both provide for comparison of similar beds and similar services. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, defines the various types of hospital beds as psychiatric, rehabilitative, and general medical/surgical acute care beds regardless of how they are used. The HCFA Conditions of Participation call for certification of SNF beds as either a distinct part of another facility or as a free standing facility. The agency regulations, as outlined in The Federal Register for February 2, 1989, outlines the requirement that SNF beds in a hospital be surveyed just as are community nursing home SNF beds. Taken as a whole, it would appear that both federal and state regulatory agencies look at SNF beds, regardless of where located, as an integral part of a nursing home operation as opposed to a hospital operation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department affirming its rejection of the Petitioner's Letter of Intent and CON application for the conversion of medical/surgical beds to SNF beds filed in the hospital batching cycle. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 90-2738 & 90-3575 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted and incorporated herein as it relates to Petitioner's filing of the LOI and the CON application. The balance is background information and is not a proper Finding of Fact. 3.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a proper Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. &13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14.&15. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18.-21. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but merely a restatement of the testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. &26. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. &29. Not a Finding of Fact but argument and a restatement of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted. Recitation of the witnesses testimony is accurate, but the conclusion drawn does not necessarily follow. Frequency of use does not necesarily determine the finality of the policy. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Accepted as a presentation of the contents of the document. Accepted. Accepted as represented. 38.-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. Accepted as a restatement of testimony. 42.&43. Accepted. Accepted. &46. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1.&2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive - Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Linda K. HarSris General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioners' applications for Certificates of Need should be approved?
Findings Of Fact Ocala Ocala is a general partnership composed of three partners: Ocala Health Care Associates, Inc., Casterfield, Ltd., and Big Sun Healthcare Systems, the lessee and operator of Munroe Regional Medical Center. Ocala is the current holder of an approved CON for 35 community beds in Marion County. If the 21-bed transfer of sheltered beds to community beds is approved, Ocala intends to operate a 56-bed facility. A 56-bed facility is more viable than a 35-bed facility. At the time of the hearing, there were 642 approved and licensed beds and 215 approved not yet licensed beds in Marion County. The 215 beds include Ocala's 35-bed CON. A patient needing subacute care is one who has been released from acute care status by a physician and is ready to be released from a hospital (acute care) to a less costly facility, e.g. a skilled nursing home. Subacute care patients are those needing, e.g., intravenous tubes, respirators, IV medication, decubitus ulcer care, tracheotomy tubes, or antibiotic therapy. Patients needing subacute care should be placed in a nursing home, since this is less costly than hospital care and it allows for acute care beds in a hospital to be used for patients needing acute care. Skilled nursing homes are authorized to provide subacute care, but are not required to do so. In order to provide subacute care, a nursing home may need additional staff and equipment. There is a problem in Marion County with the placement of subacute care patients in nursing homes. This problem is caused by a variety of factors and usually results in a patient remaining in a hospital longer than is necessary. One factor is that some of the existing nursing homes will not accept patients needing certain types of subacute care, e.g., patients needing ventilators or feeding tubes. Another equally important factor is that the nursing homes want to make sure they will get paid and there is usually some delay in determining how the nursing home will be compensated. Other factors include the patients inability to pay and, on occasion, the unavailability of beds. Ocala intends to use its 35-bed approved CON to provide subacute care. Country Club While the application shows the applicant's name as "Country Club Retirement Center," that is the name of the project. The applicant is Mr. J. E. Holland. Mr. Holland's application is for a 60-bed nursing home which will be part of a 250-apartment continuing care community. The facility is to be located in Clermont, in Lake County. Lake County is in Planning Area VII of HRS District III. Planning Area VII also includes Sumter County. Mr. Keach, the only witness presented by Country Club, is Vice President of National Health Care. National Health Care operates a nursing home in Gainesville, Florida. In addition to operating the nursing home, National Health Care assists persons seeking a CON with preparation of the CON application. Mr. Keach and other National Health Care employees assisted Mr. Holland with the preparation of the CON application submitted in this case. National Health Care will not own or operate Mr. Holland's facility. Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in Clermont for a 60- bed nursing home. He bases his opinion on letters of support for the construction of the facility, on petitions signed by persons attending a public hearing, and on four or five visits to the area. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report there were 958 beds approved and licensed in Planning Area VII. Of these, 838 are located in Lake County, with 142 located in a nursing home in Clermont. Also these are swing-beds providing long-term care at a hospital in Clermont. Finally, there were 236 beds approved not yet licensed in Planning Area VII, with 176 to be located in Lake County. The occupancy rate for the nursing home facility located in Clermont is approximately 89 percent. For the six months ending March, 1988, the occupancy rate for Planning Area VII was below 80 percent. There are at least two nursing homes in operation within a 20-mile radius of Clermont. These two nursing homes are located in Winter Garden and one of them has received a CON to add 89 beds. Twenty-Eight Corporation The applicant in this case is Twenty-Eight Corporation. "The owner of the nursing home will be the Levy Nursing Care Center, a limited partnership, which will be owned and secured by Twenty-Eight Corporation." (28 Corporation, Composite Exhibit 1.) Twenty-Eight corporation seeks approval of a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be operated as part of a continuing care project which will include a 50-unit apartment complex. The facility is to be located in Chiefland, Florida, in Levy County. Levy County is in Planning Area II of HRS District III. Planning Area II also includes Alachua, Gilchrist and Dixie counties. At the time HRS issued its State Agency Action Report, there were 1112 licensed nursing home beds in Planning Area II. Of these, 120 are located in Trenton, in Gilchrist County, 180 are located in Williston, in Levy County, and the rest are located in Alachua County. Also, there are 147 beds approved not yet licensed to be located in Alachua County. Chiefland is approximately 12 miles from Trenton. Williston is approximately 27 miles from Trenton. Mr. Keach was the only witness who testified on behalf of Twenty-Eight Corporation. Mr. Keach is vice-president of National Health Care. (See Finding of Fact 17, supra.) Mr. Keach is of the opinion that there is need in the Chiefland area for a 60-bed nursing home. His opinion is based on letters of support and petitions of support he received for the project. Also, his opinion is based on the fact that there is no nursing home located in Chiefland and the nearest nursing home is located in Trenton, 12 miles away. The 1986 District III Health Plan shows the Trenton facility having an occupancy rate of 99.93 percent. Mr. Keach never performed a study which would indicate the number of persons with a "documented need" for nursing home services who have been denied access to a nursing home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order denying Petitioners' applications in these three cases. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 88-1862, 88-1863, 88-1864 Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Ocala's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Accepted. 2-4. Supported by competent, substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 5-7. Accepted. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. There is not an absolute absence of facilities willing to accept all patients needing subacute care. Irrelevant. "Serious concerns" are not what is needed under the Rule. First sentence rejected as recitation of testimony. Second sentence irrelevant; issue is whether nursing homes will accept patients, not whether nursing homes will enter into agreement with MRMC. 13-16. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. (a) Rejected to the extent it implies that the approved facilities would not provide subacute care. Mr. Bailey's testimony is that the facilities refused to enter into a relationship with MRMC; this does not establish that the facilities would not provide subacute care. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. The weight of the evidence shows that some facilities would accept same subacute patients. True, but it is unclear if these are the physician's notations the HRS witness referred to. True that charts and logs were provided, but they did not establish the number of patients in need of subacute care in excess of licensed or approved beds. 19-26. Irrelevant. 27-29. Accepted-for what they are, but insufficient to establish need. Twenty-Eight Corporation's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4 Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. But see Finding of Fact 31. Mr. Keach testified that Chiefland is 40 miles from Williston. The road map published by the Department of Transportation shows the distance between the two cities at 27 miles. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. True, but irrelevant. Rejected as hearsay. Also, a determination by a family member does not establish medical "need". True that this is Mr. Keach's opinion. However, Mr. Keach's opinion is rejected. His opinion of need is not based on what the Rule requires or on what health planners rely on to establish need. Mr. Keach is not able to testify as to the financial feasibility of the facility because he has no first- hand knowledge of the finances. 21-22. Irrelevant. 23. Rejected. See ruling on 10., supra. 24-26. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. Irrelevant; this is not a rule challenge. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected as hearsay. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 37-38. Irrelevant. First phrase accepted. Second phrase rejected to extent implies that only need to show that no other facility exists within 20 miles. Irrelevant. Country Club's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-4. Accepted. Irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. However, this special consideration should be given only where numeric need has been established in the District. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 14-17. Irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. True, but irrelevant. See ruling on 11, supra. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence; hearsay. Irrelevant. The Rule also recognizes this. Irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. True, but irrelevant. 33-34. True, but irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. 35-39. Irrelevant. 40. Rejected as argument. Also, unable to determine what the "second portion" is. 41-42. Accepted 43. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 44. True, but irrelevant. Also, there are approved beds within 20 miles, but located in a different HRS District. Leesburg's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-7. Accepted. Rejected as not a finding of fact. Accepted. 10-15. See Conclusions of Law section of RO. Accepted. Rejected as argument. Accepted. Rejected. Fact that need does not exist under HRS rule doesn't necessarily mean that that facility will not be financially feasible. In any event, Country Club was not able to establish financial feasibility. 20-21. See Conclusions of Law. 22. Rejected as argument. 23-28. Supported by competent substantial evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Accepted.- HRS's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-19. Accepted. Rejected. The HRS witness did not specifically state that HRS needs to see the actual physician referral. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 22-28. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 29. Not a finding of fact. 30-37. Accepted. 38. Irrelevant. 39-42. Unnecessary to the decision reached. Irrelevant. Accepted. 45-46. See Conclusions of Law. Accepted. Accepted. Not a finding of fact. 50-65. Accepted. See Conclusions of Law. 66. Not a finding of fact. 67-71. Accepted, but Ocala's Exhibits 6 & 7 are not amendments to the application but simply more of the same information that was provided with the application. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 First Florida Bank Building Suite 600 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire 307 West Park Avenue Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Grafton Wilson, II, Esquire 711 NW 23rd Avenue, Suite #4 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, 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 broad issue in this proceeding is whether either of the petitioners should be granted a community nursing home CON. The parties disagree as to the appropriate application of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C. Both Petitioners argue that the approved bed inventory should be determined as of December 1, 1986, at the same time that the number of licensed beds was determined for the January 1987 batching cycle. HRS computed approved beds as of the date that the supervisor signed its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in May 1987. The parties further disagree as to the effect of subsequent changes to a Final Order in Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. HRS, cited above, originally entered in April 1987.
Findings Of Fact BMI's application number 5010, and Manor's application number 5022, were timely filed for review by HRS in the January 1987 batching cycle. Both applications were denied in HRS' State Agency Action Report (SAAR) dated May 19, 1987. BMI previously received a CON for 73 nursing home beds in Brevard County. Its current application is for 47 additional beds, to create a single 120-bed facility. The entire facility is currently under construction, with the intention that the portion unlicensed as nursing home beds will be utilized as a distinct section of adult congregate living facility (ACLF) beds. Manor also previously received a CON for 60 nursing home beds in Brevard County. CON number 3828 was granted in a prior batching cycle after the current application for 120 beds was filed. At the final hearing, Manor explained that it is now seeking only 60 more beds as it intends to construct a 120-bed facility in Brevard County. In their pre-hearing stipulation the parties agreed that if numeric need is demonstrated, numeric need would first be met through partial or total approval of BMI's application. If the need exceeds 47 beds, the excess should be applied toward determination of approval of Manor's application. The parties also stipulated that all criteria, except those directly related to numeric need for the projects, have either been satisfied by both applicants or are not applicable to this proceeding. In calculating bed need for Brevard County, the parties have agreed, through their exhibits and testimony, that the first portion of the need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C., yields a subdistrict allocation of 1560 community nursing home beds. It is further undisputed that the relevant number of licensed beds for the period in question is 1,180 beds. The version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. in effect at the time of review requires that licensed beds be counted as of December 1, 1986, for the January 1987 batching cycle. The rule is silent as to when approved beds should be counted. Both applicants argue that approved beds should be counted at the same time as licensed beds for consistency and planning purposes. The current version of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C., known as the fixed pool rule, establishes a bed need for each batching cycle, thus providing the certainty and consistency sought by Petitioners' health planners. Prior to its adoption of the fixed pool rule, HRS experimented with various policies as to the determination of "current" data utilized in the need methodology. At the time of the January 1987 batching cycle, HRS' non-rule policy regarding approved beds was to count those beds as of the date that health services and facilities consultant supervisor signs off on the SAAR. In this case, that individual was Reid Jaffe, and the date was May 11, 1987. At the hearing, Mr. Jaffe explained the policy was an attempt to reach a balance between deriving a proper number of beds and minimizing the duplication of services and overbedding. Because the need for future beds is partially predicated on how many beds have already been approved, the Department felt it necessary to take into consideration all those beds which had been approved up until its decision time. Generally the difference between the number of beds published in initial projections of need by HRS' Office of Comprehensive Health Planning and the number of approved beds considered at the time of the decision, are those beds which were approved in final orders issued during that period. Contrary to Petitioners'assertions, those beds which became licensed after the December 1st cut-off date, but before the SAAR sign off, were not lost, but rather were computed by HRS as "approved" beds under the policy. The policy described by Reid Jaffe in his testimony at final hearing is also reflected in HRS' Final Order in Broward Healthcare, Ltd., d/b/a Broward Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 FALR 1974 (DOAH #86- 2708, Order dated March 21, 1987), aff. per curiam, without opinion, January 21, 1988, 1st DCA case no. BT-258. Utilizing the HRS policy of counting approved beds at the time the supervisor signs the SAAR yields the following total: Approved Facilities Beds Date Approved West Melbourne Health Care 60 7/27/84 Unicare Health Facility of Brevard 120 5/30/86 Brevard Medical Investors 73 9/02/86 Meridian 60 2/ /87 Palm Bay Care Center 60 4/17/87 Forum Group 60 4/17/87 Courtney Springs 36 4/17/87 Total 469 In its SAAR, HRS neglected to include the 60 beds approved for Meridian. These beds were properly included by the applicants' health care planner in her adjustment to the SAAR count and HRS agrees the beds should be included. (See transcript, p. 20 and HRS proposed finding of fact #6.) In June 1985, Courtney Springs received a CON for 36 beds in Broward County. The action was challenged, and the proceeding was consolidated with challenges by other applicants who were denied CONs in the same batching cycle. Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Courtney Springs, consolidated cases #85-2868, 85- 2936, 85-2934, 85-3243, 85-3322, 85-3365, 85-3366. In its Final Order, filed on April 17, 1987, HRS granted 60 beds each to Palm Bay Care Center, Forum Group and Courtney Springs. The Final Order was corrected on May 19, 1987, to provide that the award to Courtney Springs was 36, rather than 60 beds, as there was no intent to award the facility more beds than originally provided. In all other respects the final order of April 17, 1987, remained in full force and effect. On July 6, 1987, another order was entered and styled "Amended Final Order." The stated purposes of the amendment were to correct a scrivener's error in failing to serve the final order on a moving party, Brevard Medical Investors, Ltd., (BMI) and to give that party an "opportunity to exercise its right to judicial review." The Amended Final Order addressed BMI's lack of standing for failure to file a timely petition to intervene in the consolidated Wuesthoff cases. This is the only subject of the amended final order. The original final order, dated April 17, 1987, did not address this subject. It is not at all clear that the "Amended Final Order" dated July 6, 1987, amends the April 17, 1987, Final Order, since it references only an April 9th Final Order, not the April 17th Final Order. The record in this proceeding does not include a subsequent correction of "scriveners error", if indeed the referenced date was an error. The applicants argue that the 120 beds awarded to Forum Group and Palm Care should not be regarded as ?approve even under HRS' policy, since the amended final order was dated in July 1987, well after the SAAR was signed by Reid Jaffe in May. Application of this theory would result in 349 approved beds, and a net bed need of 66 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. (Manor Care, exhibit #5) Application of Petitioners' theory that approved beds should be counted on December 1, 1986, results in 289 approved beds, and a need for 120 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. HRS' application of its policy regarding the time at which approved beds are to be counted results in 469 approved beds, and a surplus of 42 beds in the January 1990 planning horizon. There is no evidence in this proceeding of circumstances which would justify the approval of beds in excess of a net bed allocation derived through the bed need methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), F.A.C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the CON applications by BMI and Manor for nursing home beds in Brevard County be denied DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 1st day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following reflect on my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioners' Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Reid Jaffe testified that need for 12 beds exists, but this conclusion did not include the 60 beds approved for Meridian in February 1987. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and to the legal effect of the changes to HRS' April 1987 Final Order. Adopted, as to the characterization of applicants' position, in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 11-12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. 18-19. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 3. 22-26. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondents' Proposed Findings 1-2. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraphs 9 and 10. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 10. 9-11. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 15. COPIES FURNISHED: W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P. A. The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Regulation and Health Facilities 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact 1-166. Approved in substance. Approved, but modified to reflect that Hillhaven has not previously constructed and operated a Jewish nursing home in the county. Approved. 169-71. Approved in substance. 172. Approved, except for second sentence which is rejected as unproven. 173-175. Rejected as unproven. 176-180. Approved in substance. 181. Rejected as a comment on the testimony and as unproven. 182-185. Approved in substance. 186. Rejected as unproven. 187-188. Approved in substance. 189-201. Approved. Copies furnished: C. Gary Williams, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire P. O. 80x 391 Tallahassee; Florida 32302 (904)224-9115 James C. Hauser, Esquire O. Box 1S76 Tallahassee; Florida 32302 (904)222-0720 John Rodriguez, Esquire Bldg. One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-2381 Keith A. Seldin, Esquire 1340 U.S. Hwy I, Suite 106 Jupiter, Florida 33469 (305)747-3000 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES HILLHAVEN, INC. d/b/a MENORAH HOUSE-HILLHAVEN, Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2634 CON NO. 3879 vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / NORTH RIVIERA BEACH CONVALESCENT CENTER, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-3320 CON NO. 3881 vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent, And HILLHAVEN, INC., d/b/a MENORAH HOUSE-HILLHAVEN, Intervenor. / MANOR CARE OF BOYTON BEACH Petitioner, CASE NO. 86-0903 CON NO. 3877 vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent, And HILLHAVEN, INC. d/b/a MENORAH HOUSE-HILLHAVEN, Intervenor. /
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application by Hillhaven, Inc. d/b/a Menorah House-Hillhaven for a CON authorizing a 120-bed nursing home in southern Palm Beach County be GRANTED, subject to the following special condition: (a) Beds will be made available to all, without regard to a patient's religion or place of residence. Further, elderly Jewish patients will be admitted without regard to ability to pay; That the application by Manor Care of Boynton Beach for a CON authorizing a 60-bed addition to its existing nursing home in Boynton Beach be GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: The new unit will provide a Jewish living environment; including kosher food and a full range of Jewish religious; cultural, and social activities; and Patients will be admitted without regard to religion or place of residence; and That the application by the North Riviera Beach Convalescent Center, Inc., be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Procedural history In July, 1985, each Petitioner submitted an application for a certificate of need to build a 120 bed community nursing home in Manatee County, Florida. Manatee County is subdistrict 2 of Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District VI. The application of Meridian was assigned certificate of need number 4154, the application of Manor Care was assigned certificate of need number 4153, and the application of Forum Group was assigned certificate of need number 4159. The applications were comparatively reviewed by HRS. After initial review, all applicants were denied. The state agency action report does not discuss the availability, accessibility or adequacy of existing licensed community nursing homes in Manatee County. Each applicant requested a formal administrative hearing upon the proposed denials of their applications, and those cases were assigned the above cases numbers and consolidated for comparative review and formal administrative hearing. Prior to the hearing, each applicant filed an updated application. M Ex. 1; MC Ex. 1; FG Ex. 2. HRS objected to admission of evidence concerning updated applications, and particularly objected to evidence from Manor Care concerning services to Alzheimer's disease patients, but did not ask that the applications be remanded for further consideration by HRS. The Petitioners' letters of intent, applications, and requests for formal administrative hearing were all timely filed. T. 16-17. The Petitioners agreed that if need exists for 180 beds or more, each applicant would agree to receive certificates of need for one-third of such need. Need The applications of the Petitioners were received in the July, 1985, batching cycle, and the correct planning horizon for determining bed need pursuant to rule 10-5.0011(1)(k), the community nursing home bed rule, is July, 1988. T. 856. Craig Thornton testified as to need on behalf of the Petitioners. Mr. Thornton's calculation of need pursuant to the numeric need rule resulted in a net need of 187 community nursing home beds by July, 1988, in subdistrict 2 (Manatee County) of District VI. T. 814. Mr. Thornton's calculation of need used the following statistics (using the same abbreviations as used in the rule): Licensed beds in the District (LB) of 5,557 as of June 1, 1986, rather than 1985. T. 837. Licensed beds in the subdistrict 2 (LBD) of 1,005 as of June 1, 1986. T. 840. Approved beds in the District (AB) of 508 was as of August 1, 1986. T. 838. Approved beds in subdistrict 2 (AB) as June 1, 1986, was zero. T. 840-41. POPE of 243,978 was July I, 1986 estimates of July 1, 1986 population of persons age 65 and older in District VI. T. 838, 840. The poverty rate in District VI for persons age 65 and older (PBD) is higher than the poverty rate for the same age group for the state (PBS). T. 811. Using these statistics, Mr. Thornton made the following calculations: He calculated the second portion of the test in subparagraph e of the rule to determine whether the poverty adjustment should apply. That calculation, (LB + AB)/POPE, results in 0.02486, rounded. Since the last calculation was less than 27/1000, and since the poverty rate in District VI is higher than the rate statewide, Mr. Thornton next calculated PA, which is the poverty-adjusted number of beds in the District. This calculation pursuant to the rule is (27 X POPE)/1000. The result is 6,587 beds using Mr. Thornton's statistics. Following the next step in the rule, Mr. Thornton calculated SPA, which is the final subdistrict community nursing home allocation where a poverty adjustment is made. SPA pursuant to the rule is (LSD/LB) X PA. Using the above figures already obtained from Mr. Thornton's statistics, SPA is 1,192. T. 813. Finally, Mr. Thornton calculated net bed need by subtracting LSD and 90% of AB in the subdistrict (which was 1,005, using his statistics) from SPA. The result is a net bed need of 187 beds in subdistrict 2. The calculation of net bed need performed by Mr. Thornton is not correct as a matter of law, which will be discussed in the conclusions of law. There were 5,270 licensed community nursing home beds (LB) in District VI as of June 1, 1985. HRS Ex. 3 and 4; T. 863, 866. There were 765 licensed community nursing home beds (LBD) in subdistrict 2 of District VI (Manatee County) as of June 1, 1985. HRS Ex. 3 and 4; T. 866. The July 1, 1985, estimate of population of persons in District VI who were 65 to 74 years of age on July 1, 1985, (POPC) was 126,792, and the July 1, 1985, estimate of population of persons in District VI who were 75 years of age and above on July 1, 1985 (POPD) was 84,723. HRS Ex. 3 and 6; T. 872-73. The total of these two populations is 211,515 (POPE). HRS Ex. 3. The July 1, 1985, estimate of population of persons in District VI who were 65 to 74 years of age on July 1, 1988, (POPA) was 135,921, and the July 1, 1985, estimate of population of persons in District VI who were 75 years of age and above on July 1, 1988 (POPB) was 94,434. HRS Ex. 3 and 6; T. 873. The occupancy rate (OR) for subdistrict 2 (Manatee County) for the period from October, 1984, to March, 1985, was 94.6%. T. 866; HRS Ex. 3 and 4. HRS has a policy of counting beds as approved if approved before the supervisor signs the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) initially determining whether to grant or deny an application. This policy is not applicable to this case since no such beds were approved in the period between June 1, 1985, and the date of signature upon the state agency action report. Additionally, HRS has a policy of counting as approved all beds licensed after the cutoff date for counting licensed beds (here, June 1, 1985) but before the date the supervisor signs the SAAR. HRS Ex. 3, explanation on P. 2; T. 869. Pursuant to the above policy, there were 755 approved beds (AB) in District VI and 240 approved beds (AB) in subdistrict 2. Id. It should be noted that these numbers would be the same if these beds had been counted as approved if approved on June 1, 1985. Thus, application of the policy in this case is unnecessary. Based upon the statistics set forth above, the preliminary subdistrict allocation (5A) of community nursing home beds for July, 1988, is 889. HRS Ex. 3. Based upon the statistics set forth above, the poverty adjustment contained in subparagraph e of the rule does not apply, even though the District VI poverty rate is higher than the statewide rate, because licensed beds (LB) plus approved beds (AS) in District VI divided by the July 1, 1985 estimate of population in the District on July 1, 1985, of age 65 and above (POPE) is more than 27/1000. HRS Ex. 3, step 5. Based upon the statistics set forth above, there is no need for any portion of any of the projections proposed by the Petitioners. The final net bed need for subdistrict 2, pursuant to subparagraph i of the rule, is a surplus of 92 beds. HRS Ex. 3, step 6; T. 862. Suncoast Nursing Center is the former name of the Center at Manatee Springs. T. 879. Suncoast Nursing Center had 120 approved community nursing home beds on March 24, 1984, and these 120 beds became licensed on July 17, 1985. HRS Ex. 5; T. 868. It is located in Bradenton (Manatee County), Florida, J. Ex. 1, pp. and 6, and opened in September, 1985. Id. at p. 6. The Center at Manatee Springs currently provides services only to patients suffering from traumatic brain injury. J. Ex. 1, P. 7. The current operational goal of the Center at Manatee Springs is to seek out patients suffering from traumatic brain injury and that diagnosis is currently one of the Center's admission criteria. Id. at p. 9, 10, 16; J. Ex. 2, p. 10. The Center has expanded its marketing efforts to the entire nation. Id. at p. 26. It recently ordered new brochures to advertise itself for the purposes discussed above. Id. at p. 27. Traumatic brain injury is caused by trauma to the head from the outside, and does not include injuries originating internally, such as due to stroke. J. Ex. 2, pp. 5-6. On December 1, 1986, the Center had 36 traumatic brain injured patients in its 120 beds, and the average age of these patients was 26. Id. None of the patients were over age 65. Id. at p. 7. The Center at Manatee Springs does not currently consider itself to be in competition with community nursing homes in the area. J. Ex. 1, p. 16. The Center has purchased certain kinds of equipment specifically for treatment of traumatic brain injured patients (such as a brain atlas, ventilators for comatose patients, and special audiology equipment for speech pathology and memory loss). J. Ex. 1, p. 10-11. A lot of new equipment is in the process of being ordered. Id. This equipment is usually not found in a community nursing home. Purchase of certain new equipment is in the planning stage, Id. at p. 9, but has been delayed because the census has not yet been that strong. Id. at p. 12. The facility has not been remodeled in any way. Id. at p. 23. The Center is specially staffed to care for patients having traumatic brain injury. J. Ex. 1, p. 13. The Center has a high percentage of nurses on its staff, and has therapists of all types, speech pathologists, and neuropsychologists. Id. at p. 14. The Center informally contacted HRS and obtained approval from HRS to try to increase its occupancy by admitting traumatic brain injured patients. T. 901; J. Ex. 1, p. 22. HRS apparently views the practice of the Center of not taking conventional community nursing home patients as a "problem," and HRS's expert witness was of the opinion that absent permission from HRS, the Center would have to provide services to conventional community nursing home patients. T. 900-01. HRS does not have a rule governing the procedure to be followed in this situation, however, and has proceeded on informal policy. Id. If the Center were to continue indefinitely to refuse to provide services to conventional community nursing home patients, HRS would view that as a significant problem. T. 903. For the long term, the Center has not decided what the patient mix should be, and is still studying the question whether it can continue to provide services only to traumatic brain injured patients. Id. at p. 15. The Center is not limited by its license to treat only traumatic brain injured patients, and could admit community nursing home patients. T. 900. If the census of the Center does not improve, it is possible that it will then broaden its marketing efforts and admit more usual nursing home patients. Id. at p. 23. That has not yet happened, however. The current marketing intent of the Center is to admit only traumatic brain injured patients. The Center at Manatee Springs is currently not operated as a community nursing home, and is currently not accessible to persons needing conventional community nursing home services. The statewide licensed nursing home bed to population ratio was 23.18 beds per 1,000 persons as of the summer of 1986. The ratio in District VI is 24.44, and is higher than the statewide ratio. But the ratio in Manatee County is 20.47, lower than both the District and statewide ratios. T. 54. If 120 additional community nursing home beds were added to Manatee County, its ratio would be 22.92, and thus would still be lower than both the District and statewide ratios. Id. In the planning horizon (the summer of 1988), accounting for both licensed beds and all beds currently approved, the statewide ratio would be 25.46, the District ratio would be 24.86, and the Manatee County ratio would be 19.26, which would increase to 21.56 if 120 additional beds were added to Manatee County. M. Ex. 7; T. 55. HRS has previously granted a certificate of need for a nursing home where the existing numeric need rule showed little or no need and one licensed nursing home in the county was not generally accessible to conventional nursing home patients due to restrictive admission policies and low occupancy rates. T. 1018, 1032-33. The applicability of this as precedent in the case at bar is clouded by the fact that in that case the local health plan explicitly mentioned the problem, and recommended approval of new beds in that county as the first priority. T. 1030. That circumstance does not exist in this case. Moreover, it is unknown in that case pursuant to the then existing rule whether disregarding the nonaccessible beds resulted in a net numeric need sufficient to justify approval of the certificate of need. See T. 1020. The vast majority of persons using community nursing home beds in Florida are age 65 or more. Persons younger than 65 years of age using nursing home services in Florida recently constituted 7.36 percent of the total, and 8.25 percent of the total in District VI. T. 992. Since the 120 licensed community nursing home beds at the Center of Manatee Springs are not available to conventional community nursing home patients in Manatee County, or in District VI, and there is no evidence in this record to conclude that they will be available to such persons in the near future, those 120 beds should be treated as not available for purposes of determining the net bed need in the horizon year. It should be noted that the 120 beds at the Center of Manatee Springs appears in the numeric need rule only as approved beds, not as licensed beds. Thus, deletion of these beds within the context of the numeric rule would not involve deletion from either LB or LBD, and therefore would not give rise to an opportunity to witness the rather bizarre inverse mathematical relationship in the rule between the number of existing beds and "need." If the 120 approved beds at the Center at Manatee Springs are disregarded in the numeric rule, the following consequences occur: The 120 approved beds would be subtracted from the 755 approved beds in the District in step 5, concerning the poverty adjustment, but the result would still be more than 27/1000. The result would be 5,905/211,515 = 0.0279. Thus, the poverty adjustment still would not apply. Ninety percent of the 120 approved beds in the subdistrict would be deleted from the amount to be subtracted in step 6, resulting a net bed need of 16 beds, instead of a net bed surplus of 92 beds. HRS Ex. 3; T. 880-81. Sixteen beds would not be sufficient need to grant any portion of any Petitioner's application. T. 881. Petitioners argue that the 120 beds at the Center should be disregarded in another way external to the numeric need formula. Mr. Nelson, testifying as an expert for the Petitioners, was of the opinion that the problem of the 120 beds at the Center at Manatee Springs was solely an accessibility issue, and not an issue giving rise to an alteration within the numeric need calculation. T. 81-2. He reasoned that since the Center was presumptively needed at one time (because it was approved for a certificate of need for a community nursing home) but is now in fact not accessible to persons needing it, the 120 beds it represents should be replaced. Id. Mr. Nelson's method has been rejected in the conclusions of law. There is no need for any portion of any of the projects proposed by any Petitioner. No findings of fact have been made with respect to the comparative aspects of the three projects since there is no need.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order denying the applications of Meridian, Inc., Meridian Nursing Centers, Inc., and Manatee Meridian Limited Partnership, Manor Care of Manatee County, and Forum Group, Inc., sponsor of Retirement Living of Manatee County, for certificate of need numbers 4154, 4153, and 4159, respectively. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have been rejected in this Recommended Order. The numbers used correspond to the numbers of the findings of fact proposed. Findings of fact proposed by Meridian Inc.: Subordinate to primary findings of fact, and not needed. The second sentence is not relevant. 4. That last sentence is not relevant. The second sentence is not supported by the record. The witness was testifying to his current census, not historical experience. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. The words "intensely" and "full-time" are not supported by the record cited. The words "sole purpose" are not supported by the record cite. The witness only testified that its was necessary for that purpose. Subordinate. The word "exclusively" is not supported by the record cited. Cumulative. Cumulative. Cumulative and subordinate. 20. An issue of law, not fact. The words "demographically similar" are not supported by the record cited. The first sentence and last sentence are rejected because, due to lack of numerical need and lack of other legally relevant evidence of a "not normal" condition, reference to only the bed ratios cited is not a sufficient basis for concluding that it would not be unreasonable to add 120 more beds to Manatee County. The numeric need rule already accounts for population growth, so this finding of fact is legally irrelevant. Subordinate. The second sentence is irrelevant. The third and fourth sentences are issues of law, and have been rejected in the conclusions of law. The example provided by M. Ex. 18 is not relevant because the 120 beds at the Center at Manatee Springs appear in the numeric need formula as approved beds, not licensed beds. While this proposed finding of fact is true, it is legally irrelevant since the applicant has the burden of proof of showing a "not normal" condition in Manatee County, and has the burden of proof of showing need for the proposed project. The third sentence is not relevant because it stops short of the relevant issue: whether the deletion of the Moose Haven Health Center beds resulted in sufficient net bed need to grant the beds to Beverly. It is very probable that the "miniscule amount of numerical need" plus the Moose Haven beds resulted in sufficient net beds to grant Beverly's application. 35-77. No findings of fact have been made with respect to the comparative aspects of the three projects since there is no need. Findings of fact proposed by Manor Care: Irrelevant. The fact that the Department published a rule change to calculate the poverty adjustment on populations that are "projected three years into the future," instead of as now in the rule, "current," and stated that the proposed amendment "clarifies" the existing provisions of the rule, and then withdrew the proposed amendment, is too ambiguous to rely upon as argued by the Manor Care. One cannot tell from this whether the Department was carelessly using the word "clarify," as agencies often do in a euphemistic way, or actually thought that the word "current" was unclear. Moreover, the fact that the proposed amendment was withdrawn raises another set of unknowns: whether the Department withdrew the amendment because it had second thoughts and decided the word "current" was clear, or because it affirmatively rejected the adoption of a poverty adjustment as the Petitioners would have it on this record. Rejected as explained in the last paragraph. The Department does not rely upon its actions with respect to the proposed amendment to the rule as a basis for its decision in this case, and thus does not have to explicate it on this record. Rejected as more fully explained in the conclusions of law. 11-42. No findings of fact have been made with respect to the comparative aspects of the three projects since there is no need. Findings of fact proposed by Forum Group: 1-21. No findings of fact have been made with respect to the comparative aspects of the three projects since there is no need. 22-23. The lack of a need calculation in the state agency action report has no relevance to the correctness of the need calculation now offered by HRS. 24. The word "authoritative" must be rejected since the method was not legally correct. 27. Irrelevant since the error was corrected at the formal hearing, and the result of lack of need would not change, in any event. 30. Irrelevant. The prior policy contravened the rule. 34. Irrelevant. Growth in population is already contained in the numeric need rule as a factor. 38-66. No findings of fact have been made with respect to the comparative aspects of the three projects since there is no need. Findings of fact proposed by HRS: 4-5. Issues of law, not fact. 7. The first sentence is an issue of law, not fact. The first sentence is an issue of law, not fact. An issue of law, not fact. The second sentence is an issue of law, not fact. No findings of fact have been made with respect to the comparative aspects of the three projects since there is no need. Manor Care has presented evidence concerning its plan to treat Alzheimer's disease patients only in support of the comparative aspects of its project in relation to the projects of the other two applicants. It has not presented such evidence to show need, i.e., evidence that patients having Alzheimer's disease (either specifically or generally) need the services that Manor Care proposes. See proposed findings of fact 14-19 by Manor Care. Thus, it is unnecessary to reach the factual and legal issue raised by HRS as to whether Manor Care may present evidence concerning services to Alzheimer's disease patients. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr. Robert D. Newell, Jr., P.A. 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz Fitzgerald and Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadsden St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Moffitt, Hart, Rigsby & Herron, P.A. 215 S. Monroe St. Suite 800 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller 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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner proposes to construct a 90 bed long term skilled facility near a hospital complex on University Boulevard in Jacksonville, and to offer beds to medicare patients immediately upon opening the facility Only one of the four existing nursing homes on the east side of the St. Johns River in Jacksonville has medicare certification. The existing nursing home in Jacksonville with the greatest number of vacant beds does not yet have medicare certification. Petitioner submitted its application for certificate of need on July 1, 1977. Between July 1, 1970, and July 1, 1977, overall occupancy of available nursing home beds in Jacksonville was between 95 and 97 percent. In April of 1977, Riverside Nursing Home had made 58 new beds available, 95 percent of which were occupied within two and a half months, in August of 1977, Riverside Nursing Home made an additional 58 now beds available. The following month 94.4 percent of the beds at Riverside Nursing Home were occupied. On September 19, 1977, a new 180-bed nursing home, Turtle Creek, opened its doors. At the time of the hearing, 82 of Turtle Creek's beds were occupied, although Turtle Creek, which is located on the northern periphery of Jacksonville, had not received medicare certification. Notwithstanding the filling of these new beds, the number of patients in other Jacksonville nursing homes did not decline appreciably. At the time of the hearing, 90.3 percent of all nursing home beds in Jacksonville were occupied, and all authorized beds were available for occupancy. It takes approximately 22 months after the start of construction to make a nursing home like petitioner proposes to build ready for occupancy. Stays in hospital beds are three or four times more expensive than stays in nursing home beds. At the time of the hearing, some medicare patients were staying in hospitals up to a week and a half after their physicians had authorized their discharge to a nursing home, because beds in medicare certified nursing homes were unavailable. This situation should be ameliorated, at least temporarily, if Turtle Creek obtains medicare certification before its beds are filled by non-medicare patients. On the other hand, social workers employed by Memorial Hospital and Riverside Hospital testified to recently increased numbers of persons requiring placement in nursing homes, upon discharge from their respective hospitals. In the four to six months next preceding the hearing, the number of persons requiring nursing home care when discharged by Memorial Hospital doubled. At the time of the hearing, persons otherwise ready to be discharged from hospitals remained hospitalized for lack of available beds in medicare certified nursing homes. Proximity of nursing homes to their residents' families and friends facilitates visiting, which has a beneficial effect on the health of persons confined to nursing homes. The southeast section of Jacksonville, in which petitioner proposes to construct a nursing home, has a large and growing population. Turtle Creek, which has the biggest block of vacant nursing home beds in Jacksonville, is 15 miles north of petitioner's proposed site. Relevant portions of the 1977 State Medical Facilities Plan (the Plan) were received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit No. 6. The Plan utilizes projected population increases in Duval County in projecting how many nursing home beds will be necessary in order to accommodate everybody who will need one, at a 90 percent occupancy rate. On this basis, a projected need by 1982, of 1,845 nursing home beds for Duval County was incorporated into the Plan. After adoption of the Plan, but before August 10, 1977, the 1,845 figure was changed to 1,921 at the instance of Lloyd Bulme end Ronald Fehr Floyd, employees 01 the Health Systems Agency of Northeast Florida Area 3, Inc. (HSA). At the time of the hearing, 1,912 or 1,914 nursing home beds, all that had been authorized, were available for occupancy in Duval County. While embodying projections as to how many nursing home beds would be needed in the future so as to assure a 90 percent occupancy rate, the Plan provides for the possibility of error in these projections. Specifically, the Plan allows for the consideration of "extenuating and mitigating circumstances," including "availability": Availability In those instances whereby a capital expenditure/certificate of need proposal is made for a new or expanded facility and whereby it can be demonstrated and documented by the applicant and verified by the HSA and/or OCMF that: similar facilities in the documented service area have been utilized at an optimum rate (85 percent occupancy for acute general hospitals and 90 percent occupancy for nursing homes) for the previous 12 month period; and, there exists a current, unduplicated waiting list within the documented service area for the services to be offered by the new or expanded facility; these factors will be considered in making a determination on the capital expenditure/ certificate of need proposal. Petitioner's exhibit No. 6. In applying the Plan's 90 percent optimum rate formula, the Office of Community Medical Facilities "would certainly consider the open beds, the occupancy during the preceding twelve months of the open, available for use beds, tempered certainly by beds which have been approved but are not yet available." (T1231) Fifty-nine of the nursing home beds in Jacksonville require "[m]odernization," according to the Plan. Petitioner's application for a certificate of need was initially reviewed by a committee" of the HSA. On August 25, 1977, the Health Needs and Priorities Committee voted to recommend approval of petitioner's application, on condition that Jacksonville's nursing homes' occupancy rate not fall below 90 percent for four months once all the authorized nursing home beds became available for occupancy. This consideration was consistent with the local Health Systems Plan's requirement of 90 percent or better occupancy, calculated the basis of all authorized beds, for four months preceding the grant of a certificate of need for additional nursing home beds. Before the Executive Committee of the HSA acted on the Recommendation of the HSA's Health Needs and Priorities Committee, HSA staff were advised by the Office of Community Medical Facilities in Tallahassee that "December 19, 1977 . . . . [was] the latest possible time for a decision Petitioner's exhibit No. 17. Inasmuch as Turtle Creek began operation on September 19, 1977, only three months before "the latest possible time for a decision," there was not to be a four months' trial with all authorized beds available, before HSA's Executive Committee passed on petitioner's application. Instead, HSA staff calculated the occupancy rate by adding all existing nursing home beds in Jacksonville, and all other authorized nursing home beds expected to become available in Jacksonville, and dividing the sum into the number of occupied nursing home beds in Jacksonville less the number of occupied beds in Regency House Center (because the HSA staff did not have Regency House Center "patient data." Petitioner's exhibit No. 6.) This calculation yielded an occupancy rate of 84.4 percent for the four months preceding the date on which petitioner filed its application. Because 84.4 percent was less than 90 percent called for by the Health Systems Plan, the HSA's Executive Committee disapproved petitioner's application. Subsequently, the Office of Community Medical Facilities also acted unfavorably on petitioner's application, for reasons which the evidence adduced at the hearing did not make entirely clear. The foregoing findings of fact should be road in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastmam, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla 1st DCA 1976) , which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent grant petitioner's application for certificate of need. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 77-2243 Paragraphs one, two, five, six, seven, nine, ten, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen, seventeen and eighteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact accurately report the evidence adduced at the hearing and have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraphs three and four and most of paragraph nineteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact are actually proposed conclusions of law. Paragraph eight of petitioner's proposed findings of fact overstates slightly the number of existing nursing home beds in Jacksonville. The discrepancy between the Health Systems Plan and the State Medical Facilities Plan was 146 beds for the entire area. Paragraph twelve of petitioner's proposed findings or fact has been largely rejected. The evidence did not establish that all 35 beds at Regency House Center were probably full. The charges to the state plan were apparently called to the attention of federal bureaucrats in Atlanta. (T254) Paragraph fifteen of petitioner's proposed findings of fact overstates slightly the number of existing nursing home beds in Jacksonville; end is otherwise supported only by the speculative testimony of one witness. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esq. Rogers, Towers, Dailey, Jones & Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417 F Jacksonville, Florida 32231
Findings Of Fact The Parties Manor-Sarasota Manor Health Care Corporation operates 140 nursing centers throughout the country with nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLF) in Florida. Seven of the nine Florida nursing homes are rated superior and two are standard. Manor-Sarasota is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Health Care Corporation, and currently owns and operates a 120 bed nursing home, with a 120 bed ACLF, at 5511 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida. The facility opened in December, 1983 and currently has a standard license, although for a period in 1986 its license was conditional. Manor-Sarasota is currently licensed as a skilled nursing home providing trach care, nasogastric feedings, wound care, physical, speech and occupational therapy, as well as Clinatron beds for patients with severe decubitus ulcers. On or about January 15, 1987, Manor-Sarasota filed CON application number 5050 for the addition of sixty community nursing home beds at its facility. The proposed additional beds will include a separate 30-bed specialized unit for elderly persons suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Manor Health Care Corporation currently operates 13 to 15 Alzheimer's units within their existing centers. Between 30 percent - 50 percent of Manor-Sarasota's current patients are diagnosed as having Alzheimer's or related disorders. There are no specialized facilities for Alzheimer's patients in Sarasota at the current time. The current facility is a two-story nursing home, and the additional beds would be configured in a two-story addition of thirty-five beds on the first floor and twenty-five beds on the second floor. The thirty-bed Alzheimer's unit would be located on the first floor. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's patients will also be provided. An additional nurse's station would be added to provide 4 nurse's stations for 180 beds. Total project costs are reasonably projected at $1.85 million, with construction costs of $1.26 million, equipment costs of approximately $170,000, professional services of approximately $137,000 and related costs of approximately $253,000. The proposal would add 16,683 gross square feet to the existing 49,454 gross square feet. The total project cost per additional bed would be $30,872, while the construction cost per square foot would be $55.00. The gross square footage per bed would be 278 feet. Manor-Sarasota projects a 40 percent Medicaid and 60 percent private pay utilization for the 60 bed addition, although its Medicaid utilization at the existing facility has only been between 15 percent and 24 percent. Since there is an upward trend in Medicaid utilization, Manor-Sarasota would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition on its CON, if approved. Medicare patients will continue to be served within the existing facility. The project will be funded through 25 percent equity and 75 percent financing. Manor Health Care Corporation will finance the project internally through the sale of assets, and the sale of senior subordinated notes and convertible subordinated debentures, and this financing proposal is reasonable and realistic. In Manor-Sarasota's original application, six 3-bed wards were proposed. As a result of criticism of 3-bed wards in the Department's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) concerning this application as well as other facilities, the applicant modified its proposed design to eliminate all 3-bed wards and to include 24 semiprivate and 12 private rooms. The square footage of the addition was also increased by 21 percent from 13,750 to 16,683 square feet. This modification was presented at hearing and was filed subsequent to the application being deemed complete, and the SAAR being prepared. Competent substantial evidence in support of the original application was not offered, but rather evidence was presented in support of the substantially modified proposal. The applicant's existing 120-bed nursing home has experienced over 90 percent occupancy for the months of November, 1987 to the date of hearing, and also experienced an average occupancy of approximately 86 percent for 1986 and the first ten months of 1987. During the first year of operation, 65 percent occupancy is projected for the 60 new beds which are now being sought, and 95 percent occupancy is projected for the second year of operation. Sarasota Healthcare Sarasota Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership whose general partners are Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Sarasota Healthcare proposes to enter into a management agreement with Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) for the operation and administration of their proposed facility. The Kelletts, as 100 percent owners, comprise the Board of Directors of CSI and also serve as its Chairman and President. CSI operates 21 nursing homes in seven states, and 85 percent of its beds have superior licenses. There are 6 CSI operated nursing homes in Florida, one of which, Pinebrook Place, is located in Sarasota County in the City of Venice. Pinebrook Place is a 120 bed nursing home and has a superior license. Sarasota Healthcare does not own or operate any other nursing homes. A new 120 bed freestanding nursing home is proposed by Sarasota Healthcare in CON application 5025, which was filed with the Department in January, 1987. The project would be located in Sarasota County at a specific site which has not yet been identified. Sarasota Healthcare projects a utilization of 40 percent Medicaid, 5 percent Medicare and 55 percent private pay at its proposed facility, and would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition of this CON, if approved. The proposed facility would offer skilled, intermediate, respite and hospice care; specialized services for Alzheimer's patients; physical, occupational, speech and rehabilitative therapy; counseling; and social services. Alzheimer's patients will not be located in a separate unit but will be intermingled with other patients while receiving specialized services and protections for their disease. Sarasota Healthcare proposes a 120 bed nursing home comprised of 12 private and 54 semiprivate rooms, 37,7000 gross square feet and a total project cost of $3.9 million The proposed size and cost of this facility are reasonable. The cost per bed would be $32,500 and the construction cost per square foot would be $58.00. Total project costs are reasonable and consist of approximately $2.45 million in construction costs, $385,000 in equipment costs, $145,000 for professional services, land acquisition of $600,000 for 3 to 5 acres, and $324,000 in related costs. The gross square footage per bed would be 314 feet. The project will be funded with 25 percent equity funding from the general partners, Stiles and Samuel Kellett, and 75 percent from a commercial bank, assuming a 9.5 percent interest rate with 1 percent discount point. The proposal is reasonable, but is dependent upon the general partners' ability to personally fund 25 percent of the costs of the project through an equity contribution, and on their ability to obtain commercial financing for the remaining project costs. Financial statements of the Kelletts provided in the record of this proceeding are unaudited, and were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Kelletts have 15 CON applications currently pending, and 4 have already been approved. They have a 6 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Health Quest On or about January 15, 1987, Health Quest corporation submitted an application for CON number 5046 on behalf of Regents Park of Lake Pointe Woods for the addition of 58 new beds to its existing 53 sheltered bed nursing home at a projected cost of approximately $1.29 million. The existing sheltered nursing home facility is known as Regents Park of Sarasota which is part of the Lake Point Woods Retirement Center containing a 110 bed ACLF and 212 retirement apartment units. The sheltered nursing home opened in November, 1986, and has achieved 90 percent occupancy since October, 1987. It is licensed under Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, as a continuing care facility. Health Quest owns and operates nine nursing centers in three states, and has received CON approval for 12 additional facilities in three states, including four in Florida. One of these Florida CONs is for 180 new community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Health Quest's existing Regents Park of Sarasota nursing home is located at 7979 South Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. Although it is a sheltered nursing home, only one or two beds are generally occupied by Lake Point Woods residents at any one time. During 1987, only 26 admissions to Regents Park came from Lake Pointe Woods, and most of these admissions were for episodic illnesses of less than 30 days rather than for longer term care. Thus, the vast majority of admissions at Regents Park have been from the community, including admissions directly from home, hospitals and other nursing homes, rather than from the retirement center, Lake Pointe Woods, of which Regents Park is a part. However, since existing beds at Regents Park are sheltered, community patients will not be able to be admitted there beyond November, 1991, the expiration of five years from its opening. During its year and a half of operation, Regents Park has not shown a profit, despite original projections of profitability after only one year. In response to the Department's omissions letter dated February 19, 1987, Health Quest notified the Department, by letter dated March 27, 1987, of its amendment to CON application 5046. Rather than pursuing its request for 58 new community nursing home beds, Health Quest amended the application to seek conversion of the 53 sheltered beds to community beds and to add 7 new community nursing home beds. Since no new space is proposed for construction under the amendment, and since virtually all equipment is already in place, Health Quest projected no cost associated with the amended project. However, there would be some minor costs to equip seven new beds, as well as legal and consulting costs associated with this application and hearing. Currently, the Regents Park nursing home has approximately 31,000 total gross square feet, which would result in 520 gross square feet per bed if its application is approved. On April 10, 1987, the Department published its notice of completeness regarding Health Quest's amended CON application 5046 at Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 13, No. 15, p. 1365. The Department reviewed and evaluated Health Quest's amended application, rather than the original application, in preparing its SAAR on the applications at issue in this case dated June 15, 1987. Despite this notice of completeness, the record shows that Health Quest's conversion proposal was incomplete since no balance sheet, profit and loss statement for precious fiscal years of operation, detailed statement of financial feasibility or pro forma were introduced. Although sheltered beds can be certified to accept Medicaid patients, Health Quest has not sought such certification for any of the 53 existing beds at Regents Park. Health Quest proposes to seek Medicaid certification for 5 beds, and to serve 8 percent Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Health Quest does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special outdoor activities for these patients as well as an Alzheimer's club for patients with this primary diagnosis. Health Quest specializes in caring for patients with hip fractures, and offers a wheelchair mobility and ambulation program, rehabilitation and occupational therapy, bowel and bladder rehabilitation, as well as physical and horticulture therapy. Regents Park has patients on intravenous therapy and who require hyperalimentation and total parenteral nutrition. LPN and nurse's aide students from Sarasota Vo/Tech School receive training at the Regents Park nursing home. HCR In 1986, HCR purchased, and currently owns and operates a 147 bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida, known as Kensington Manor, which holds a standard license. HCR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, a publicly held corporation, and has built over 200 nursing homes in the last 25 years. At the present time, HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds in 19 States. HCR owns and operates a total of 9 nursing homes in Florida, and has about 10 nursing home projects under development which it intends to operate upon completion. On or about January 14, 1987, HCR filed CON application 5049 with the Department. This application seeks approval of 60 new community nursing home beds at Kensington Manor, at a currently projected cost of $1.82 million, which is a reasonable projection. The cost per new bed would be $30,030. HCR proposes to finance to project with a 25 percent equity contribution, and 75 percent internally financed by HCR through its parent company, Owens-Illinois, and this proposal is realistic and reasonable. Throughout 1986, Kensington Manor had an occupancy level of between 85 percent - 95 percent and is currently operating at 95 percent - 96 percent occupancy. HCR reasonably projects 95 percent occupancy for the 60 new beds in the second year of operation. HCR reasonably proposes a patient mix in the new addition of 45 percent Medicaid, 4 percent Medicare and 51 percent private pay. Kensington Manor is currently 75 percent - 80 percent Medicaid, 1 percent Medicare, and the remainder is private pay, but its proposed patient mix for the new addition is realistic because there will be no three-bed wards in the addition, and sub- acute services will be provided, thereby increasing the Medicare percentage. The HCR proposed addition at Kensington Manor provides a distinct 29 bed wing for Alzheimer's patients where a special care program and special staffing can be made available. Additionally, a 12 person Alzheimer's adult day care center will be physically attached to the new addition where a less intense level of care outside the home can be made available to these patients. Respite care and sub-acute care will also be provided. The project will add a 60 bed, single story addition to Kensington Manor, with a special Alzheimer unit consisting of 1 private and 14 semiprivate rooms, an enclosed courtyard and porch. A second dining room will be added, as well as 2 central bathing areas, multipurpose and physical therapy rooms. The addition would total 18,000 gross square feet, or 267 gross square feet per bed in the new addition. Kensington Manor currently has approximately 30,000 gross square feet, with 1 private and 52 semiprivate rooms, and 14 three-bedroom wards. Therefore with the addition, Kensington Manor would have approximately 48,000 gross square feet which would be approximately 223 square feet per bed for the entire facility. Sisters of Bon Secours The Sisters of Bon Secours, a Catholic religious order, are currently responsible for the operation and ownership, through not-for-profit corporations, of a JCAH accredited 272 community bed nursing home in North Miami having a superior license, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, and they also have a CON for an additional nursing home to be located in Collier County. On or about January 15, 1987, Sisters filed CON application 5039 for a new 120 community bed nursing home to be located in Sarasota County, and to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. Sisters is the only applicant involved in this case which is not already providing services in Sarasota County. The proposal calls for the development of a teaching nursing home to be designated as a center for training and research in the study of gerontology and long term care. Affiliations with schools and universities will be developed to allow health care administrators, social workers, medical and nursing students, and practitioners interested in developing a specialization to fulfill their clinical studies and requirements. There will be an emphasis on restorative and rehabilitative care, with 20 percent of the beds being designated for sub-acute care patients who could return home after 30-45 days of therapy and transitional care. Sisters will develop a continuum of care by networking in the community. It is the only applicant that proposes to provide a site for education and research in Sarasota County. The proposed facility is intended to serve the needs of members of the Venice Diocese who reside in Sarasota County, where there is currently no Catholic nursing home. The Venice Diocese is now served by the Sisters' nursing home in Charlotte County, and will also be served by the facility to be located in Collier County, for which a CON has already been issued. However, treatment at these nursing homes, including the proposed Villa Maria of Sarasota County, is not limited to Catholics; the Sisters accept, treat and care for persons in need from all religions backgrounds and denominational affiliations. Total project costs are estimated at $6.64 million, including $3.86 million for construction, approximately $592,000 for equipment, $762,000 to acquire a seven acre site, $237,000 for professional services, $888,000 for financing costs and approximately $300,000 in other related costs. The project would encompass almost 60,000 gross square feet, and would cost approximately $55,300 per bed and $64.50 per square foot. Almost 500 gross square feet would be available per bed, which represents the most square footage per bed of any application under consideration. The proposed facility would have 8 private and 56 semiprivate rooms, with in-room tubs and showers, 3 patient lounges, and a 100 seat dining room. Due to the large size of the proposal, some patient rooms exceed 120 feet from nurse's stations. However, this licensure requirement can easily be met with minor design modifications during the licensure process. Sisters project a 33.3 percent Medicaid, 17.6 - 19.7 percent Medicare, 4 percent indigent and 43 percent - 45 percent private pay utilization for the 120 bed nursing home in its first two years of operation. While Medicaid utilization in Dade County during 1987 rose to 68 percent as a county-wide average, Sisters' Dade County nursing home experienced a drop in Medicaid to 14.6 percent. The high Medicare utilization level which has been projected is consistent with, and based on, the experience of the Sisters at their Dade County nursing home which currently has 21 percent Medicare utilization. However, due to the greater number of hospital referral sources, as well as the larger population and fewer competing nursing homes in Dade County compared with Sarasota County, Medicare utilization projections may be overstated, and actually fall between the 3-4 percent historical utilization in the Sarasota area and Sisters' projection. It will be somewhat above 3-4 percent due to the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home which will attract more Medicare patients. The project will be funded with an equity contribution of 10.6 percent ($635,455) and the remaining 89.4 percent ($6 million) will be funded through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. This financing proposal is realistic and reasonable. The proposed nursing home is intended to offer services to AIDS patients, adult day care, and a meals-on-wheels program. However, it was not established at hearing that such patients would definitely be served, or that space would be available at this facility for these services until the Sisters can determine the actual level of need for these services in Sarasota County, if this CON is approved. Department of HRS On or before January 15, 1987, the Department received the CON applications at issue in this case for additional community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. As it relates to this case, the Department issued its SAAR on June 15, 1987, in which the application of HCR (CON 5049) for a 60 community nursing home bed addition to Kensington Manor was approved, and all other applications in this case were denied. In addition to the HCR application, the Department also supported at hearing the applications of Manor Care (CON 5050) for a 60 bed addition to Manor-Sarasota and Sisters of Bon Secours (CON 5039) for a new 120 bed community bed nursing home to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. The Department opposed the issuance of a CON to the remaining applicants. It is the position of the Department that changes or updates to CON applications made after an application has been deemed complete and reviewed in a SAAR, cannot be considered at hearing if such changes or updates are the result of matters or events within the control of the applicant, and which therefore could have been foreseen and considered at the time the application or responses to omissions were filed. However, matters involving payor mix, salaries and charges could result from changes in demographics and economic factors outside of the applicants' control. In such instances, updates or changes to an application based upon current demographics or economics can, and should be, considered at hearing. The updated pro forma submitted by Sarasota Healthcare at hearing resulted from the applicant's desire to reflect current salaries in the Sarasota County labor market, which have increased dramatically since the original application was submitted. As a result of updating salary expense projections, Medicaid and Medicare rates also had to be updated. Associated projections throughout the pro forma which are dependent upon these reimbursement rates, as well as salary expense projections, also had to be updated. The updated pro forma presented by Sarasota Healthcare results from a factor outside of the control of the applicant, inflation, which could not have been foreseen or predicated with certainty in January, 1987. To ignore actual, current inflation data in Sarasota County is to ignore reality. This update is permissible and has been considered. Manor-Sarasota's application presented at hearing includes changes in its proposed payor mix, charges and salaries, as well as its pro forma. These updates are permissible since they result from changes in demographics and inflation outside of the applicant's control which could not have been foreseen in January 1987. However, a 21 percent increase in square footage and elimination of three-bed wards, with associated changes in proposed staffing, capital costs and equipment, while certainly having a positive effect on quality of care, is nevertheless a matter totally within the control of the applicant. The desireability of these changes could have been foreseen at the time the application was filed, and therefore these substantial changes in design represent impermissible amendments to Manor-Sarasota's application. Stipulations The appropriate planning area for these applications is Sarasota County, and the appropriate planning horizon is January, 1990. Sarasota County is in subdistrict 6 of the Department's service district 8. The parties have stipulated that there is a need for 240 additional community nursing home beds in the January, 1990, planning horizon in Sarasota County, in accordance with the bed need formula in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The parties have agreed that Section 381.705(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (1987), have been met, or are not applicable to this case. This statutory criteria deals with the adequacy and availability of alternative health care facilities and the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. All remaining criteria found at Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), are at issue in this case. Further, the parties stipulate that 1987 amendments to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, relating to the content of applications, are inapplicable in this proceeding since these applications were filed prior to the effective date of said law. Therefore, application content provisions of Section 381.494(4), Florida Statutes, govern. State and Local Health Plans The 1985 Florida State Health Plan, Volume II, Chapter 8, identifies areas of concern relating to the provision of long-term care services in Florida, which traditionally has been synonymous with nursing home care. These concerns include resource supply, cost containment and resource access. The State Health Plan seeks a reduction in the fragmentation of services and encourages development of a continuum of care. These proposals are consistent with, or do not conflict with, the State Health Plan. The 1984 District Eight Local Health Plan for Nursing Home Care is applicable to these applications for community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. The Local Health Plan contains the following pertinent criteria and standards for review of these applications: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. At a minimum community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy h. occupational therapy laboratory i. physical therapy x-ray j. speech therapy dental care k. mental health visual care counseling hearing care l. social services diet therapy m. medical services New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33 1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable service areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up services with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. The specifically stated goal of the Local Health Plan is to develop new community nursing home facilities in which at least 33 1/3 percent of the total beds should be Medicaid. The impact of this long range recommended action is stated as follows: The provision of Medicaid care beds in existing nursing homes would assure continuity of care for nursing home patients, and should improve placement in appropriate levels of care by hospitals, physicians, social services, health departments, and other referral groups. The provision for Medicaid beds would reduce cost to patients, utilizing skilled care beds, who could adequately be served by Medicaid. With the exception of Health Quest's application, all other applicants meet the above stated standards and criteria contained in the Local Health Plan. Health Quest's application does not conform to the Local Health Plan. All applicants in this proceeding have indicated that they will provide therapies and services recommended in the Local Health Plan. All applicants, except Health Quest, indicate a commitment to dedicate at least 33 1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. The new nursing home facilities proposed by Sisters and Sarasota Healthcare would each be for 120 beds, consistent with the Local Health Plan standard that new facilities have at least 60 beds. Health Quest has proposed a 60 bed community nursing home through conversion of 53 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 7 new community beds. As existing providers, Manor-Sarasota, HCR band Health Quest have patient transfer agreements with one or more hospitals, as well as formal discharge planning programs and patient follow-up services, as recommended in the Local Health Plan. The applications for new facilities of Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters indicate they will also comply with these priorities if approval is granted and their facilities are opened. By virtue of its existing service and transfer agreements through the CSI facility in Sarasota County, Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare will be able to obtain these necessary agreements. Based upon Sisters' experience in Dade County at Villa Maria, as well as the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home, Sisters will also be able to obtain such agreements. Data has been provided by the existing nursing homes (Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Health Quest) which documents the history of their participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The other applicants (Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters) have provided Medicaid/Medicare data for other existing facilities with which they are affiliated or upon which their application at issue in this case is based. Based upon this data, Pinebrook Place in Sarasota County, which is owned and operated by Sarasota Healthcare's general partners has not met the Medicaid condition on its CON, and the existing Manor-Sarasota facility has had only 24.8 percent Medicaid utilization in fiscal year 1988: Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services HCR and Manor-Sarasota would increase the availability and adequacy of existing services they are now offering with the 60 bed additions each is seeking. The separate 30-bed specialized unit proposed by Manor-Sarasota and the 29-bed wing proposed by HCR for Alzheimer's patients will clearly increase the availability of specialized services for persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders, as well as their families. HCR will also dedicate 10 beds for sub-acute care, while Manor-Sarasota will offer community outreach, as well as respite care. Sarasota Healthcare, Sisters and Health Quest do not propose special units for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special programs and services for them and their families. It was established that there is a need for additional services and programs to serve nursing home patients with Alzheimer's and related disorders in Sarasota County, as well as a special need for sub-acute, restorative, hospice, respite, and adult day care in the County. It was not established that there is a need for additional Medicare beds in Sarasota County. Sisters have indicated an interest in offering services to patients with AIDS and patients in need of adult day care, for which there is also a need in Sarasota County. In addition, their application will enhance the availability of sub-acute nursing home services, restorative and rehabilitative care, and respite care in Sarasota County. While it would serve patients of all denominations and religious affiliations, it would be the only Catholic nursing home in Sarasota County. The teaching component of the Sisters' application would provide access for students and other health professionals seeking to further their professional training. The Sarasota Healthcare proposal also places special emphasis on increasing the availability of sub-acute services in Sarasota County. Quality of Care The Sisters will seek JCAH accreditation of the proposed facility if their CON is approved, just as their nursing home in North Miami is currently accredited. The proposed affiliation with a college of medicine and nursing school, and the intent to operate this facility as a teaching nursing home will insure quality of care at this nursing home by utilizing state-of-the-art treatment and therapy programs. Florida nursing homes currently owned or operated by each of the applicants or their affiliated corporations have standard or superior licenses which means they meet or exceed State Standards. Licensure status of facilities owned or operated in other states by the applicants, or their affiliated companies, has not been considered since it was not established that licensure standards in other states are similar, or even comparable, to those in Florida. Each applicant has significant experience rendering quality nursing home care, and each has proposed a reasonable and comprehensive quality assurance program which will insure that quality nursing home services will be provided to their residents. The architectural design proposed by each applicant is reasonable and sufficient to allow quality care to be provided at each facility. All instances where an applicant's design fails to meet final construction standards are relatively minor, and can easily be met during the licensure process with slight modifications and adaptations in design. Staffing proposals by each, while different, will all insure that adequate medical, nursing, counseling and therapeutic staff will be trained and available either on-staff or through contract, to implement quality care programs at each facility. Manor-Sarasota's past reliance on temporary nursing services is decreasing and this will have a positive effect on quality of care. HCR has just completed extensive repairs and renovations costing $350,000 at Kensington Manor which will improve the atmosphere, living conditions and overall quality of care at the facility. Sisters' educational affiliations will aid in recruiting and retaining well-trained staff for its facility. Each facility will be equipped to provide quality care. There was extensive testimony about the advantages and disadvantages of central bathing facilities compared with private baths or showers in patient rooms. Sisters and Health Quest would provide private bathing facilities in patient rooms, while the others would have central facilities. Obviously, individual bathing facilities in patient rooms offer more privacy than central facilities, but privacy can also be achieved in a central bathing area by taking only a single, or limited number of patients to a partitioned central facility at any one time. The central facility is less costly than bathing facilities in each room, and also requires less staff time and involvement to assist with, and insure safety in, the patients' bathing. It has not been shown that one type of bathing facility provided in a nursing home, to the exclusion of all others, affects the quality of care in a positive or adverse manner. Quality care can be, and is, provided under both designs. The elimination of 3-bed wards from Manor-Sarasota's application would have a positive impact on quality of care, and be consistent with the Department's position of discouraging the creation of additional 3-bed wards in nursing homes. However, such elimination was proposed after this application was deemed complete by the Department. Patients suffering from Alzheimer's and related disorders can benefit from programs and treatment conducted in separate units, or while comingled with other patients, particularly in the early and middle phases of the disease. In the later phase of the disease it may be less disruptive to other patients if Alzheimer patients reside in a separate wing or unit of the nursing home. Quality care can be rendered through separate or integrated programming, and all applicants in this case that propose to offer specialized services to these patients have proposed programs and facility designs which will provide quality care to persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders. While there are differences in facility design, such as the two-story construction of Manor-Sarasota compared with the single level construction of all other applicants, and the central heating and cooling proposed by Sisters compared with individual wall units to be used by Sarasota Healthcare, the proposed designs of all applicants allow for the rendering of quality care to patients. Access for Chronically Underserved The Health Quest proposal is inconsistent with the Local Health Plan policy that 33 1/3 percent of all nursing home beds should be dedicated for Medicaid patients since it proposes that only 5 of its 60 beds (8 percent) will be certified for Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Although Medicaid utilization at Manor-Sarasota has not been consistent with the Local Health Plan, it is projected that if CON 5050 is approved Medicaid utilization will rise to 40 percent. Sarasota Healthcare, HCR and Sisters propose to meet or exceed this Local Health Plan policy. HCR has experienced a 75-80 percent Medicaid utilization at Kensington Manor, and proposes a 45 percent Medicaid level in the new addition if CON 5049 is approved. Financial Feasibility The proposals of Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters are financially feasible. Health Quest did not file a pro forma and has not shown a profit in its year and a half of operation at Regents Park. Based upon its actual per patient operating expense at Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare has underestimated expenses in its second year of operation by approximately $8 per patient day. Its projection of a profit in the second year of operation is questionable due to this underestimation. Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters have established their ability to finance, through equity and debt, the construction, equipment, supplies, and start-up costs associated with their proposals. Health Quest will have no construction costs, and only very minor costs to equip and supply seven new beds it is requesting. The entire financial structure of CSI and Sarasota Healthcare is dependent upon the financial strength of their general partners, the Kelletts, who currently have $76 million in long term debt and $12 million in equity. This is a relatively high debt to equity ratio of 6 to 1 which makes them susceptible to adverse impacts from any downturn in the economy, especially since they have 15 additional CON applications pending in Florida, totaling $60 million in construction costs. In contrast to the Kelletts' high debt to equity ratio, Sisters have $159 million in long term debt and $160 million in equity for a very secure 1 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Projections of revenue and expense, as well as assumptions concerning projected utilization, Medicaid and Medicare rates, private pay rates, and patient mix used by Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters in their pro forma are reasonable, based upon that applicant's experience and the services proposed in their applications at issue. Adequacy of Staffing All proposals have adequate and reasonable staffing patterns, as well as staff training programs, to insure that quality care is provided. Proposed salaries are reasonable and will allow qualified staff to be hired, based upon the recruiting experience and salaries currently offered by Sarasota nursing homes. Adequate staff resources exist in the area. I. Most Effective and Less Costly Alternative Since it is generally not necessary to construct support areas for storage, laundry, kitchen and administration, adding additional beds to existing facilities is a less costly alternative to an entirely new facility. Health Quest, HCR and Manor-Sarasota are, therefore, less costly per bed than Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters' proposals to construct new 120 bed nursing homes. Specifically, there are only minor costs associated with Health Quest's proposal, while the cost per bed of the Manor-Sarasota and HCR proposals are $30,872 and $30,030, respectively, compared with $32,500 per bed for Sarasota Healthcare and $55,295 for Sisters. Health Quest's application is the least costly alternative since it involves no construction costs to add seven beds to the existing 53 sheltered beds which would be converted to community nursing home beds, although minor costs for equipping seven new beds would be incurred. Effect on Costs and Charges Sisters and Health Quest have proposed, or actually experienced, the highest costs and charges of all applicants. Health Quest has not shown any basis upon which it can be reasonably expected that room rates will decrease, as it asserts, if this CON is approved. Due to the large size of its proposed building, higher food costs and number of staff, Sisters projects the highest operating expense per patient day in the second year of operation. Sisters will provide almost 500 gross square feet per bed, while Manor-Sarasota, HCR, and Sarasota Healthcare will provide 278, 267 and 314 gross square feet per bed, respectively. Enhanced Competition Since the other applicants are already represented in the service area, the approval of Sisters' application would enhance competition by adding another provider to Sarasota County. This will provide more choices to nursing home residents, and should increase the quality of long term care in the community with the added emphasis this proposal will place on rehabilitative programming. Costs and Methods of Construction The costs and methods of construction proposed by the applicants are reasonable, as well as energy efficient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order, as follows: Approving HCR's application for CON 5049; Approving Sisters' application for CON 5039; Denying the application of Manor-Sarasota, Sarasota Healthcare and Health Quest for CONs 5050, 5025 and 5046, respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 9th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3471, 87-3473, 87-3475, 87-3478 and 87-3491 Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30, 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 6-10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the parties have stipulated to need. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 55, 69, 70. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 56, 58, 60. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55. Rejected as irrelevant since the parties have stipulated to need. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 57. Rulings on Manor-Sarasota's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17 and Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5, 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14 but Rejected in Findings of Fact 71, 73. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 35, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding or Fact 2. Rejected as unsupported and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61 but also Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 60, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but otherwise Rejected as unsupported argument on the evidence, without any citation to the record, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 82 but Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 64 in part, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64 and as not supported by the record. Rejected as unnecessary and without citation to the record. Adopted and. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 71. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 33-34. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 35-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as speculative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 41-43. Rejected as not supported by the record and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 81. Adopted in Findings of Fact 71, 75. 56-57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55, 56. 59-61. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact l. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81 but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 6-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 10-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 55. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23, 28, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 27, 28. 24-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 28-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46-49. 31-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 40-42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 71, 75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as unnecessary. 45-46. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 51-54. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 56-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 49, 51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. 69-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 34. Rulings on Sisters' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 13-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47-54. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 18-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 30, but otherwise Rejected as argument unsupported by any citation to the record. 30-38. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Rejected in Finding of Fact 40. 41-51. Adopted in Findings of fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. 52-58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. 60-75. Rejected as unnecessary irrelevant, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. 82-83. Rejected as unnecessary. 84. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 85-86. Rejected as unnecessary. 87-88. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 41. 89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as not supported by the record. 90-91. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63 and otherwise not supported by the record. 92-105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and irrelevant. Rejected as unsupported in the record and otherwise unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and speculative. Rejected as unnecessary. 111-112. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 113. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. 114-115. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 116-120. Adopted in Findings of Fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 121. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 122-123. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. 124. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31, 34, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported in the record. 125-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. 127-129. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since no applicant has locked in interest rates, and therefore these rates will vary and are speculative. Rejected as speculative and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 132-135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 136. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. 137-139. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 140. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 141-145. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. 146-147. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 71, 84, but Rejected in Findings of Fact 81, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Rejected as cumulative and unsupported by the record. 155-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. 159. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Sarasota Healthcare's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. 4-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 7-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12-16, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 61. 22-23. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 24-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 14, 57, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 83 and as unsupported in the record. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 57. 47-49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 56, 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 53-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 65-78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 79-85. Adopted in Findings of Fact 76, 77, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 86-97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 101-103. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 84. 104. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 105-109. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 16, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 73. 112-116. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 71, 73, 75, but otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. 120-121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. 122-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 127-128. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 32. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. 133-135. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 33, 63, and otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant since all licensure requirements can easily be met with minor modifications. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32, 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 140-142. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 51. 145-146. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 147-148. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 57 and as unsupported in the record. 149-150. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative 153-156. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76, 77 and otherwise not supported in the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact s. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51. Rulings on Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as speculative and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 27-34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 63, 76, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 35-39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66. 41-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as simply a statement on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact and otherwise irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. 68-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 72-74. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51 and otherwise as irrelevant. 75-76. Rejected as unnecessary, although it is agreed that these matters are irrelevant and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 81-82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 83. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 84-88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as legal argument rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. 92-94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 95. Adopted and. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 41. 96-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as irrelevant. 102. Rejected as cumulative. 103-104. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 107-109. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63. 110-111. Rejected as unsupported in the record and irrelevant. 112-114. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported by the record. 115. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 116-117. Rejected as unnecessary. 118-120. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise simply as a summation of testimony. 121-122. Rejected as irrelevant and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 125-127. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as a summation of testimony. 128. Rejected as cumulative. 129-131. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. 132-134. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise as irrelevant. 135. Rejected in Findings of Fact 43, 48, 57 and otherwise as irrelevant. 136-142. Rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is not the accuracy of the SAAR, but rather whether applicants have sustained their burden of establishing entitlement to a CON based on the record established at hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of HRS 2727 Mahan Drive, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Watkins, Esquire Harry F. X. Purnell, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Byron B. Matthews, Jr., Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2802 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue The issues under consideration are those associated with applications filed by the aforementioned private parties seeking certificates of need for skilled nursing home beds based on a fixed need pool of May, 1989, which identified 261 beds for the January, 1992 planning horizon. The beds are available in HRS District III. The applications are for: CON Action No. 5987 Inverness--20 beds; CON Action No. 5912 Suwannee--60 beds; CON Action No. 5913 McCoy-- 60 beds; CON Action No. 5962 Starke--120 or 60 beds; and CON Action N. 5905 Regency--120 beds.
Findings Of Fact Related to the May, 1989 batching cycle HRS has identified a need for 261 nursing home beds in District III. The applicants accept that determination of the pool of beds, that is to say no applicant has sought beds over and above the 261 beds identified by HRS. Further, the parties have expressed their agreement to allow Regency to be granted CON 5905 to construct a new nursing home facility in Lake County, Florida, which will have 120 beds. The written stipulation sets out the parties belief that all applicable criteria for obtaining a certificate of need as set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, have been met. That stipulation is accepted, provided the following conditions are met in issuing the certificate of need: The annual resident population of the facility shall include at least 62% of Medicaid patient days. Two beds shall be dedicated to the care of Alzheimer and respite care residents. The facility shall be a one story design consisting of 43,000 square feet in size. Likewise, the parties have agreed to allow the issuance of CON 5987 to Inverness to add 20 community nursing beds to its existing facility in Inverness, Florida. That written stipulation points out the agreement by the parties concerning the Inverness compliance with all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes as well as any implementing rules set forth in Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Code. The arrangement is one by which existing ACLF beds are converted to nursing home beds. That stipulation is accepted, upon condition that Inverness commit to provide a minimum of 75.2% of total patient days for Medicaid patients. The Inverness stipulation which reiterates Inverness' lack of opposition to the grant of a certificate of need to Regency also withdraws its opposition to McCoy, Starke and Suwannee. By the terms of the stipulation's 140 of the 261 beds in the pool are spoken for. This leaves for consideration the applications of Suwannee, Starke and McCoy. In the absence of subdistricting, District III is divided into seven planning areas. The planning areas are as established by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. Planning Area l is constituted of Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Columbia, Union and Bradford counties. Suwannee intends to place its facility in Suwannee County. Starke intends to place its facility in Columbia County. The expansion of the McCoy facility would occur in Marion County which is the sole county in Planning Area 4. By resort to the North Central Florida Health Planning Council District III Health Plan preferences can be seen concerning the allocation of beds among the applicants within the various planning areas. A copy of that plan is HRS Exhibit No. 2. Under this scheme the McCoy application to add 60 additional nursing home beds to its existing facility in Marion County, Florida, is considered a third priority. A third priority would allow the addition of at least 60 beds and no more than 120 beds. The Suwannee and Starke applications are a fourth priority under the local plan which allows for an addition of up to 60 beds. The McCoy application as presented at hearing responds adequately to all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, to include the State Health Plan and District III Health Plan. McCoy holds a superior license rating at present and has a proposed capital expenditure for this project of $1,568,000. Taking into consideration the proposed allocation of beds set forth in the local health plan, the distance between the McCoy facility and the proposed facilities in Suwannee and Columbia counties by the applicants Suwannee and Starke and absent proof which clearly identifies that Suwannee and Starke are meaningful competitors against McCoy and its attempt to gain a certificate of need calling for expansion of its facility, the McCoy application should be granted. That grant should be conditioned upon a willingness to serve Alzheimer patients in the proposed 14 bed unit and the commitment to provide Medicaid at a 60% level as a minimum commitment. This arrangement would bring the total number of nursing home beds at McCoy to 120, a desirable number when considering economies of scale. What must be resolved by comparative analysis of the applications of Suwannee and Starke, is which of those competitors for 60 beds out of the 61 beds remaining in the pool should be granted a certificate of need, if any. Starke had noticed its intention to apply for 120 beds and made application for 120 beds and in the alternative for 60 beds. The decision to notice its intent to apply for 120 beds was not misleading nor inconsistent with HRS policy in a circumstance where the application was stated in the alternative for 120 beds or 60 beds. The significant point is that Starke explained its alternatives of 120 beds or 60 beds in detail in the course of the application. HRS perceives that the 120 bed notice of intent took into account a lesser number of beds being applied for on the due date for applications and that perception is reasonable. Suwannee noticed the intent to apply for 60 beds and applied for that many. Both Suwannee and Starke met all procedural requirements for consideration of their applications for nursing home beds. In determining the disposition of the 60 nursing home beds needed for Planning Area l within District III, it is noted that Suwannee and Columbia counties are contiguous. Columbia is east of Suwannee. While the main emphasis by these applicants is to serve the needs of residents within the two counties where the facilities would be located, given their contiguity there is a potential for either applicant to serve needs within both counties. Columbia county is the more populous county. However, in the two counties the age cohorts in the 65 and over group and 75 and over group are similar, especially in the 75 and over group. Occupancy rates in the existing nursing homes within the two counties are also similar. The J. Ralph Smith Health Center in Suwannee County has 107 existing beds and 54 beds approved. Those additional 54 beds were designated for residents of the Advent Christian Village exclusively; however, the residents of that village constitute part of the population base in Suwannee county. Therefore this limited utilization of that resource still benefits citizens within Suwannee county. Surrey Place in Suwannee county has 60 beds and the Suwannee Health Care Center has 120 beds with 60 more approved. The 60 additional beds may not be constructed in that the applicant failed to proceed to construction in the time contemplated by CON 3746 and may lose the beds. Columbia County has Tanglewood Care Center with 95 beds. It has Lake City Medical Center with 5 beds associated with a hospital. Palm Garden of Columbia has approval for 60 beds. On balance there would not appear to be an advantage to placing the 60 beds at issue in either Suwannee or Columbia counties when considering the population to be served, present occupancy rates for existing nursing bomes and geographic accessibility to the proposed nursing homes. Suwannee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. The parent corporation filed the application with the permission of Suwannee. The 60 bed nursing home facility is part of an overall project which includes the replacement of an existing 60 bed acute care hospital with a 30 bed acute care hospital. If the proposals are accepted the hospital and 60 bed nursing home would be located on a common parcel. HRS has granted CON 6179 to decertify 30 beds. The approved cost of the delicensure and establishment of the new hospital is $6,752,824. The nursing home component of this project is stated to cost $3,408,100 in the way of capital expenditures with an operating equity in the amount of $300,000. The overall health care delivery system contemplated in the hospital and nursing home project includes the replacement hospital, the new nursing home, an out patient diagnostic center, home health care, hospice and adult day care services. Suwannee has the financial backing of its parent corporation which owns a number of health care facilities including six hospitals, two health maintenance organizations and six other health related corporations. Both Suwannee and the parent corporation Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. are not for profit. The Santa Fe operations are in Florida and its hospital holdings include other rural hospitals in addition to Suwannee which is a rural hospital. Before filing the application for the 60 bed nursing home neither Suwannee nor the Santa Fe parent corporation had any involvement in long term health care delivery. Suwannee intends to serve the needs of Alzheimer patients and to provide services to persons needing subacute care. In its present hospital facility in Suwannee County it has 24 swing beds with which it serves patients needing subacute care and which beds are seen as an alternative to nursing home beds. That alternative has limited utility. Although swing beds may serve nursing home patients they are not an alternative for long term care in lieu of community nursing home beds. To the extent that Suwannee Hospital has tried to place patients in nursing homes needing a high level of skilled care, described as subacute care, it has experienced problems. Existing nursing homes in Suwannee County have not accepted the placement of those patients. It is unclear from the record what portion of subacute care needed in the service area will continue to be met in the hospital proper with the advent of delicensure of 30 beds. There was testimony to the affect that the hospital has the option to request swing beds in its remaining 30 bed hospital facility, but it has not been shown that the hospital will avail itself of that opportunity and through the use of the swing beds be able to render subacute care. The description by Suwannee of the subacute patients that it is contemplating serving through its nursing home are those who require a shorter stay in nursing facilities, who are said to have fragile medical condition and require intensive licensed nursing care. In the application, it states that the Medicare patients contemplated as being served by this prospective nursing home would be the principal users of the subacute care. There patients would have an average length of stay of 15 days with 12 patients per month being served. The Medicare per diem charge of $130 for the first year of operation is said to include the cost of care given to these patients who are said to be heavy users of subacute care. That per diem charge reflects ancillaries such as the various therapies as well. Having considered the explanation of this application, it is less than apparent what the difference would be between the subacute care services now being provided by the hospital in its swing beds and those contemplated by its nursing home application. In a similar vein, it is unclear what the distinction would be between the subacute care rendered in the proposed nursing home when contrasted with the subacute care being provided in swing beds that might be available in the 30 bed replacement hospital. If granted a certificate of need Suwannee is committed to serving AIDS patients. Suwannee intends to serve Medicaid patients and it projects a percentage of patient days attributable to Medicaid patients in the first two years of operation to approximate 73%. This is contrasted with experience statewide of 62%, within District III of 75% and within the planning area of 81%. Projected per diem rate for Medicaid reimbursement within the first year of operation is $68. The financial expert presented by Suwannee said that the applicant could charge as much as $10 to $12 more, making the Medicaid rate $78 to $80 per day. This increase contemplates raising the present caps on reimbursement. The record does not support increases in the caps of $10 to $12 in the relevant planning period. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay per diem rate at Suwannee reflects $97 as the charge and $80 as the charge for semiprivate room, private pay. This is as compared to $130 for Medicare per diem. Although it is unacceptable to charge more for Medicare than private pay, Schedule 12 within the application shows the inclusion of ancillaries for the Medicare patient and the exclusion of ancillaries for private pay. Under the circumstances it is difficult to tell whether the Medicare per diem charges exceed the private pay per diem charges as has been contended by Starke. The inclusion of the therapies as ancillary costs is shown on page 39 at Schedule 12 of the application of Suwannee. On Schedule 17 in the first operating year the therapies as ancillary costs are not broken out as individual items such as physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy separate and apart from routine services. Instead an aggregate figure is given. That precludes an understanding of what portion of the per diem charge for Medicare patients is attributable to those ancillary costs. The circumstance is made more bewildering in that the financial expert presented by Suwannee stated that the $130 per diem charge had application to residents who were receiving subacute care. What portion of the per diem charge for Medicare residents is attributable to the subacute care component is not revealed in the application. Neither, is it explained in the testimony. Notwithstanding the assurance of the Suwannee financial planner that the Medicare rate projected for the first year of operation is in keeping with the Hospital Cost Containment Board's data on the average rate structure, that comment and his other explanations failed to establish the reasonableness of that charge. This is especially true when considering the fact that the Medicaid charges, even accepting an adjusted rate of $80 per day, are also indicated at Schedule 12 as including therapies and are far less than the Medicare per diem. Schedule 17 shows the Medicaid without reference to the therapies as an aggregate item in the same fashion as described with the Medicare category of reimbursement. Further, evidence of the fact that private room, private pay, does not exceed the Medicare per diem charge is related at Schedule 12 where it describes the subacute private room, private pay patient as paying $150 and the semiprivate, room private pay as paying $130. Again, in the Suwannee application in the first year of operation for both Medicaid and Medicare therapies are said to be included in the basic charges of $68 and $130 respectively shown at Schedule 12 and carried forward in the aggregate on Schedule 17. From the explanations stated by the financial planner, the projected costs for therapies by those two categories of patients is not reflected in the ancillary cost centers for physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy found at lines 11-13 of Schedule 18. Instead, they are reflected at line 39 under other costs centers in the amount of $80,900. Moreover the $80,900 is said to include subacute services as well as the therapies. Having considered Schedules 12, 17 and 18 for the first operating year, together with the other evidence presented in the course of the hearing, the estimate at line 39 of Schedule 18 of $80,900 is unreliable. The Suwannee project contemplates a facility of approximately 24,370 square feet. The construction cost estimate is $62.44 per square foot. The total project cost per bed is $56,802. That far exceeds the caps for the property cost component related to Medicaid residents which is presently $30,350 per bed. Put another way, that translates to a differential of $11.64 per patient day above present reimbursement levels for Medicaid residents. That differential cannot be made up by resort to payments for ancillary services for that category of resident. The shortfall attributable to the costs per bed differential in the application of $56,802 compared to $30,350 per bed plus ancillaries is not expected to be made up by resort to other revenue sources within this proposal either, nor can it be properly be. This is particularly true when approximately 70% of the patient days are expected to be provided by Medicaid residents. Even if Suwannee were able to obtain reimbursement for the per bed cost of $56,802, this is much more than the Starke cost per bed which is approximately $30,000 as built. The cap that has been mentioned is the one effective July 1, 1990. Nothing in the testimony would suggest that the caps would approach $56,802 within the planning horizon for this review cycle. In summary, the financial feasibility of the Suwannee proposal has not been established. While the parent corporation, Santa Fe Health Care, Inc., is strong financially and able to sustain Suwannee in its nursing home operation in the short term, even with expected losses, the losses will be extraordinary and the long term feasibility has not been demonstrated either. Simply stated, too much money is being expended to establish this facility and it may not be recouped by resort to the reimbursement scheme identified in the application. Under the circumstances, the nursing home is not perceived as a means of promoting the financial well being of the overall project constituted of the nursing home, relocated hospital and associated services. It is not accepted that the manner and quality of care proposed to be delivered by Suwannee is so superior that it justifies the inordinate expense in delivering the care. In other particulars Suwannee has shown that it meets all applicable criteria for granting it a certificate of need, but the overall costs are so exorbitant that they preclude financial success in the project. In addition, even if the project met the criteria its costs compared to the Starke proposal are so much more that the Suwannee proposal should be rejected in favor of the Starke proposal. It is not accepted that a hospital based nursing home is superior to a freestanding nursing home as urged by the presentation made by Suwannee. Starke had applied for a 120 bed nursing home, with a separate request explaining its proposal to construct a 60 bed nursing home. It is that latter proposal that fits the need in Planning Area I of District III. The total capital expenditure for that alternative proposal is $1,882,713. The cost per square foot is approximately $60 in the 22,500 square foot facility. The per bed costs is in the neighborhood of $30,000. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay is $89; the semiprivate room, private pay rate is $79; the Medicaid rate is $69.50 and the Medicare rate is $69.50. These rates do not include ancillary charges for therapies. The Starke proposal will include a unit for Alzheimer, subacute care, adult day care and respite care. Starke will provide 80% of its patient days for Medicaid residents and 10% of its patient days for Medicare residents. The Medicaid performance exceeds that of Suwannee. That rate is consistent with the experience which Starke has in the operation of its Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida, a 120 bed nursing home facility which has held a superior license rating over the three years preceding the application. Starke as a corporation would own both the Starke, Florida facility and the proposed Lake City, Florida facility. The principals in that corporation with 50% ownership are J. D. Griffis and George R. Grosse, Jr. The subacute care that is to be provided is in patient rooms which are directly adjacent to the nursing station. It is the intention of the applicant to build these rooms to allow support for medical equipment needed in the treatment of those residents. Although some criticism has been directed to the architectural design of the proposed nursing home facility, Starke has committed itself to meet all applicable codes. Under the circumstances it does not appear that this application presents significant problems associated with resident safety or inordinate costs in making necessary adjustments to comply with applicable codes. The Starke application was prepared by Jerry L. Keach, the then administrator for University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, operated by Covenant Care Corporation. By the comments found in the application it was contemplated that the Covenant Care group would manage the Starke facility in Lake City, Florida, which would do business as Lake City Care Center. No contract has been executed between Starke and Covenant Care Corporation to allow the latter entity to manage the Lake City facility assuming the grant of the certificate of need to that applicant. At hearing the principals for Starke indicated that Covenant Care together with other unnamed organizations would be considered as management for the nursing home in Lake City. Although this issue of management is unresolved, reservations about the project are overcome in recognition of the success of the Starke corporation in the operation of the Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida. That suffices as an indication that Starke is capable of installing appropriate personnel to operate the Lake City facility, and provide quality care. The assumptions concerning the various aspects of the proposals set forth in the Starke application are sufficiently explained in the course of the final hearing and those explanations are accepted. It is reasonable to expect that the nursing home could be constructed, staffed and operated in a manner consistent with the explanations found in the application and through testimony at hearing. A successful outcome is anticipated whether the Covenant Care Corporation is employed to operate the facility or not. The favorable impression of the Starke proposal is held notwithstanding the criticism directed to the financial feasibility by remarks offered by Suwannee. In particular the Suwannee Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence questioning the assumptions of the Starke applicant concerning income projections for the first two years have been taken into account. Whispering Pines Care Center presently offers care for Alzheimer patients and subacute services. Therefore problems are not anticipated in the provision of those services in the proposed facility. With due regard for the criticisms that have been directed to the financial ability of Starke to maintain its Whispering Pines Nursing Center and the proposed project in Lake City, Florida, it is found that the applicant has the ability to conduct those businesses. As with the matter of financial feasibility, Starke has satisfied all other applicable criteria for the grant of a certificate of need to construct the 60 bed nursing home.
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which requires all CONs granted to be consistent with the applications and in keeping with that intention: Grants CON 5987 to Inverness for the addition of 20 community nursing home beds to its existing facility upon condition that those beds be constituted of a minimum of 75.2% total patient days for Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5962 to Starke for construction of a nursing home in Columbia County, Florida, constituted of a minimum of 80% total patient days for Medicaid patients, that provides Alzheimer services, subacute care, day care and respite care; Grants CON 5910 to McCoy for the addition of 60 beds upon condition that 60% of the patient days be devoted to Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5905 to Regency for construction of a 120 nursing home facility with 62% of its patient dads being devoted to Medicaid patients, 2 beds dedicated to Alzheimer patients, provision of respite care and that the facility shall be a one-story design consisting of 43,000 gross square feet in size; and Denies the application for a 60 bed nursing home in Suwannee County made by Suwannee under CON Action No. 5912. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NOS. 90-0043 and 90-0045 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Inverness Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Suwannee Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found in that the Starke application can be advanced without a resort to an affiliation with Covenant Care Corporation. Paragraph 9 is accepted; however, those facts do not cause the rejection of the Starke proposal. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 12 is accepted as factually correct; however, this is not crucial in determining the outcome of this case. Concerning Paragraph 13, while the record reveals that Mr. Keach was responsible at a time moratorium had been placed on admissions into University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, the record was not detailed enough to ascertain what influence that might have on his ability to act as an administrator at the Starke facility proposed in this instance or his competence in preparing the application. The representations found in Paragraph 14 do not preclude the consideration of the Starke application. Concerning Paragraph 15, the first sentence is rejected as fact. The second and third sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 16, those items which are mentioned did not cause the rejection of the Starke application in that Starke is committed to abide by all applicable codes to insure control over the patients. Paragraphs 17 through 21 are contrary to facts found. Concerning Paragraphs 22-24, the Starke proposal is found to be financially feasible. Paragraph 25-27 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 28, notwithstanding economies of scale they will not overcome the inherent extravagance in the costs associated with bringing the Suwannee project on line. Concerning Paragraph 29, while diversification for rural hospitals is desirable, the present attempt by Suwannee is unacceptable. Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 31 see comment on Paragraph 29. Paragraph 32 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 33 is accepted; however, the principal service area would appear to be Suwannee County. The existence of service over to Hamilton, Madison, Lafayette and Columbia Counties does not change the perception of this case. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 35 is contrary to facts found as are Paragraphs 36 and 37. Concerning Paragraph 38, the affiliation of Suwannee with the Santa Fe Health Care system does not overcome the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 41 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 42 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 43 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 46 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 47-55 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 57-60 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 61 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 62 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 63 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 64 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 65, notwithstanding these observations they do not justify the rate structure or per diem charges set out in the Suwannee application. Paragraph 66 is subordinate to facts found as are the first two sentences of Paragraph 67. The last sentence to Paragraph 67 is rejected. Paragraphs 68 and 69 are contrary to facts found. The first sentence of Paragraph 70 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not relevant. Paragraphs 71 through the first sentence of Paragraph 73 is contrary to facts found. Concerning the last sentence of Paragraph 73, Starke is found to be financially feasible and Suwannee is not. Paragraph 74 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 75 and 76 have been taken into account in deciding that there are no particular advantages to placing the 60 beds in Columbia County as opposed to Suwannee County. Paragraph 77 in all sentences save the last is accepted. The last sentence is contrary to facts found in that subacute care will be rendered in the Starke facility. Paragraphs 78 through 80 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 81 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 82 is accepted in the premise, but use of Suwannee as the facility to serve this population is rejected based upon the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraph 83 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the subacute patients would not be best placed with Suwannee. Paragraph 84 and 85 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 1-5 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning that latter sentence it is clear that Suwannee would intend to build the nursing home facility together with the hospital or exclusive of the hospital project. Paragraphs 6-8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 9 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is accepted and it is acknowledged that the applicants can approximate that average. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 13 Suwannee did establish its percentage of commitment to Medicaid through proof at hearing. Paragraphs 14 through 23 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is contrary to facts found in that Starke offers no greater enhancement than Suwannee in terms of geographic accessibility and is not really a competitor in this criterion with McCoy. Paragraphs 25 through 27 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 28 is contrary to facts found in that Suwannee did identify the programs that it intends to offer. Paragraphs 29 through 36 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 37 in the first sentence is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 39 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 40 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 41 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion that there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 42 is rejected. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 44 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 45 through 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 53 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 54 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the reason that the Suwannee project is not found to be financially feasible does not include reference to a higher charge for Medicare patients than the charge to private pay patients. Paragraphs 55 through 60 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 60 are subordinate to facts found. The nursing home is intended to be built whether the replacement hospital is built or not. Paragraphs 61 through 65 are subordinate to facts found. Starke Paragraphs 1 through 5 with the exception of the latter two sentences in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning the next to the last sentence, it was made clear that the intentions on the part of Suwannee were to build the nursing home. The last sentence to the extent that it is intended to suggest that this applicant is incapable of offering long term care services is rejected. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 12 to the extent that it suggests that Suwannee is not willing to provide services to Medicaid recipients, it is rejected. Paragraphs 13 through 21 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is contrary to facts found in that Starke is not seen as enhancing geographic accessibility to a greater extent than Suwannee its true competitor. Paragraphs 23 and 24 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found ih that Suwannee has identified its special programs. Paragraphs 26 through 33 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 35 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 36 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 37 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion than there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 39 is rejected. Paragraphs 40 and 41 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 42 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 43 through 50 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 51 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 52 is subordinate to facts found except as it suggests that the difference in rate between Medicaid patients and private pay patients in the Suwannee proposal forms the basis for the criticism that the Suwannee project is not financially sound. Paragraphs 53 through the first two sentence of Paragraph 59 are subordinate to facts found. Related to the latter sentences in Paragraph 59 it is clear that the schematic pertains to the basic design of the Suwannee facility whether attached to a new hospital or free standing. Paragraphs 60 through 64 are subordinate to facts found. McCoy Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 through 83 are subordinate to facts found. Regency Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Elizabeth McArthur, Esquire Jeffrey Frehn, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle and Thomas 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez and Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahasee, FL 32314-6507 Leslie Mendelson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, FL 32308 James C. Hauser, Esquire F. Phillip Blank, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Julie Gallagher, Esquire F. Philip Blank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Grafton B. Wilson, II, Esquire 711 North 23rd Avenue, Suite 4 Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, FL 32602 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Dempsey and Goldsmith, P.A. 307 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
