Findings Of Fact HCR initially applied for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action 3854, which it denied. Manor Care also initially applied for a CON to construct a 120- bed nursing home facility in Lee County, DHRS District VIII. DHRS assigned this application CON Action No. 3850, which it denied. Manor Care and HCR timely filed petitions for formal administrative hearings which resulted in the DOAH Consolidated Case Nos. 85-2937 and 85-3240. During the hearing, Manor Care and HCR offered updated CON applications (respectively MCI and HCRS). While the Manor Care proposal is a "scale-down" to 60 beds (HCR still proposes 120 beds. both applications propose nursing home beds be set aside to offer a therapeutic environment for patients with Alaheimer's Disease and patients with related disorders. Manor Care's update also provides for an attached 60-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), which does not require a certificate of need. DHRS objected to the admission in evidence of the respective applications but did not move for relinquishment of jurisdiction to the agency for consideration by its experts of the updated material in lieu of formal hearing (Vol. III p. 54). Both applications had been submitted to the DHRS attorney prior to hearing. Upon the Hearing Officer's own motion, an evidentiary hearing was conducted prior to the taking of other evidence solely on the propriety of consideration of the updated applications without resubmittal to DHRS. The HCR update did not change the number of beds, nor the patient mix. The Manor Care update was downsized to 60 beds, and this is permitted as a matter of law. Neither update requires amendment of the District Health Plan or the same fixed pool; neither attempts to alter the January 1988 planning horizon contemplated by the original January 1985 applications. The other changes contained in the updated applications relate to a description of the Alzheimer's Disease (AD) program and design of the AD unit for each application, or other changes such as increase or decrease in costs due to inflation and the passage of time, including particularly, the fact that subsequent to the filing of the original application there was a recognition in the District Health Plan and the State Health Plan of the special needs of AD patients, which was contained in the 1985-87 State Health Plan, Vol. III, p. 109. (T-73-74, Vol. II - testimony of HCR expert, Milo Bishop; DHRS Exhibit 5), and the subsequent Local District VIII Health Plan also identified the concern of availability of beds for Medicaid patients. Specifically, the District VIII Health Plan recommends priority consideration for nursing home beds to be given to applicants that will propose to accept a proportion of Medicaid eligible patients that is at least equal to the most recent quarterly figure of Medicaid occupancy in the district. (T-75, Vol. III, DHRS Exhibit 5). The updated application of HCR was filed to reflect these recently identified needs of the AD patients, sub- acute patients and Medicaid patients. The update of each Petitioner also clarifies assurances of Medicaid availability. The updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR proposed special programs for AD patients and a separate wing which appears now to be a treatment of choice for these types of patients. Awareness of AD and its ramification has increased significantly in the recent past. Recognition of the special needs of these patients in the respective updated CON applications constitutes refined material describing the current state of knowledge in medical care. The proposals by Manor Care and HCR to designate separate units and programs for AD patients does not constitute a substantial change in the applications for all of the foregoing reasons but also because any nursing home may admit and treat AD, related disorders, and sub-acute care patients without obtaining a specialized CON and because these types of patients could have been treated in the nursing homes described in the original applications. As far as the identification of newly available information on AD and related disorder patients are concerned, the updates are clearly encouraged within the purview of Balsam v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 486 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Over all, none of the amendments of the Petitioners are substantial and the updated applications of both Manor Care and HCR are proper amendments permitted in these de novo proceedings pursuant to McDonald v. Department of Banking & Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); and Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 483 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), Motion for Rehearing (Feb. 14, 1986). The ruling that both amended applications were not substantial amendments and therefore no remand to the agency was necessary was entered on the record (Vol. III, p. 103 and is accordingly reiterated and confirmed here, within the Recommended Order. During the hearing, all the parties stipulated to the reasonableness of construction (and equipment) cost, and financial feasibility of both projects. DHRS (but not the Petitioners) stipulated that both Petitioners projects satisfied all quality of care considerations. Upon all the evidence (oral, documentary, and demonstrative) including but not limited to the testimony of Loma Overmeyer, Charlotte Young, Tal Widdes, and John Lee, it is found that both Petitioners have affirmatively demonstrated their respective abilities to provide satisfactory quality of care to their patients through these respective proposed projects. Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, contains DHRS' methodology for computing nursing home bed need. The need methodology provides that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined 3 years into the future. Here, the applicable planning horizon is January, 1988, which is 3 years from the time the initial applications were filed. Applications for new community nursing home beds will not normally be approved if such approval would cause the number of community nursing home beds in an area to exceed the bed need calculated pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b) 1-10 Florida_ Administrative Code. Applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. All need experts utilized current population figures provided July 1, 1986 by the Office of the Governor. However, DHRS has arrived at a 37 bed surplus. The DHRS expert, Joyce Farr, testified she used the date of hearing (July 1986) as a basis and current population figures, rendering a gross need of 1,089 beds. If current population figures are used and the January 1985 (initial application date) is used, there is a gross bed need of 1,204 beds. There are 996 licensed nursing home beds in Lee County as of June 1, 1986. Applying the rule to either gross bed need leaves 93 (1089 minus 996) net need or 208 (1204 minus 996) net need. Manor Care calculated both ways and would qualify by either method if it were the sole applicant, but the net bed need by either calculation greatly exceeds the beds proposed by Manor Care. The latter calculation, based on January 1985 instead of the 1986 population projections is urged by HCR as preserving the sanctity and logic of batching cycles and planning horizons. Such an application of the rule's methodology would clearly permit a CON for 60 nursing home beds to be issued to Manor Care and also permit a CON for 120 nursing home beds to be issued to HCR, with a surplus of 28 beds. This solution of awarding a total of 180 beds (60 plus 120) would not offend DHRS established policy that applications for community nursing home facilities are normally approved for a minimum of 60 beds. Nonetheless, HCR's reading of the rule mixes 1985 and current figures without adequate justification in the record and is neither literal nor in conformity with the agency policy and interpretation which witness Farr testified has been applied by her on behalf of DHRS in at least 100 contested CON formal hearings. Further, it is clearly logical and in the best interests of the public and the health planning professions, and in accord with the intent of Chapter 381 F.S. to apply those figures which will most accurately reflect the bed need at the projected (January 1988) planning horizon. In this instance, that set of figures renders the net general community nursing home bed need as 93. However, Joyce Farr also testified that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to apply the rule as promulgated but instead to reserve 143 beds for Lee County and to subtract these beds as if they were already approved. The "reserved" 143 beds represent DHRS' interpretation of Gulf Court v. DHRS. Pursuant to directions in the opinion of the First District Court of Appeal in that case, DHRS has received, for comparative review, CON applications from the three party applicants in that case. Those parties' applications were originally filed in 1981 and 1982, and are for nursing home beds in Lee County. As of date of formal hearing in the instant cause, none of the "Gulf Court" parties' applications had been approved. The Department's stated intention regarding the three "Gulf Court" applications is to award 143 beds to one or more of the party applicants in that case. This intention is based upon the Department's interpretation of the Gulf Court case, and not upon any calculation of need for a planning horizon. As of date of hearing, DHRS had not given any consideration to the effect of changed statutes, regulations, facts, or circumstances on the "fixed pool" of beds applied for by the "Gulf Court" applicants. In her calculation of net need for the sub-district of Lee County, the DHRS witness counted the 143 beds set aside for the "Gulf Court" applicants as "approved" beds. Other than those beds, there are no other approved beds, nor any applications pending from prior batches. The DHRS methodology used to subtract 143 beds is not consistent with the provisions of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. (See Conclusions of Law). If the DHRS bed need formula contained in Rule 10- 5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, is used, the correct number of beds needed for the planning horizon of January 1985 through January 1988 is 93 general community nursing home beds. Each applicant has included, in the updated applications presented at hearing, a number of beds set aside in a unit for Alaheimer's Disease (AD) patients. Manor Care has indicated that 18 beds would be so designated. HCR proposes to establish a 30 bed unit for both "Alzheimer's and the related disorders"' including 15 beds "just for wanderers." AD "is a degenerative process of the brain, characterized by memory impairment and impairment in several mental and physical functions." The disease progresses at certain levels or stages. There are four progressively worsening stages of this disease. In the first stage, the patient starts to forget names and facts in the recent past, and also begins to be unable to perform some complex tasks that the patient was able to perform before the disease began. In stage two, the impairment in memory increases. The patient starts to forget common names of objects usually used in daily living, and the patient starts to wander. There are often behavioral problems, such as agitation or depression. In stage three, there is. physical impairment, including incontinency, speech disturbances, and problems with communication. In stage four, the patient most of the time is confined to a bed, and largely unaware of his_ environment. He is incontinent. Without adequate care, he has sores on his back. He is nearing death at that point. AD is irreversible and the cause is unknown. Diagnosis is very difficult. The only positive method of diagnosis is by brain biopsy. The most common method of diagnosis is by a process of elimination and this often fails in the early stages of AD. Incidence of AD increases in the over 65 population but there are cases of some patients as young as 30. A large percentage of any nursing home is suffering from some form of dementia. The estimated need of "irreversible dementia" patients in nursing homes in Lee County for the year 1988 is 2,189. Out of this number of patients, 60% would be specifically AD patients or 1,313. Dr. Baquero presently has 100 AD patients in existing area nursing homes. AD patients are cared for in almost all nursing homes, but usually there is no separate area or program. There are no specialized programs or units for AD patients currently established in Lee County. The existing facilities in Lee County do not provide adequate care to persons suffering from AD. Because of the lack of facilities, AD patients are often kept at home until families are to the pint of desperation. Care of the AD patient is an enormous, 24 hour-a-day burden on the care-givers. Additional stress is caused by personality changes that often accompany the disease. Most facilities in Lee County will not accept a difficult patient. Families of AD patients have placed patients in facilities out of country, out of state, and out of country, because of the lack of facilities in Lee County. Dr Baquero, practicing medical physician in Ft. Myers, who is experienced in treating AD patients and who has knowledge gained as Medical Director for two existing nursing homes, was qualified as an expert in the care and treatment of AD patients. Upon his evidence and upon evidence of the representatives of the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), it is found that AD patients frequently have to be placed outside Lee County, as far as 60 to 70 miles from home. Approximately 50% of AD patients consulting ADTDA return to northern home states or go to foreign countries rather than awaiting long- delayed Lee County placement. Placement of AD patients also on Medicaid or needing sub-acute care is even more difficult. The Petitioners further demonstrated that other patients in addition to AD patients are not adequately served by the existing facilities in Lee County. It is extremely difficult in Lee County to place a patient who is in need of high technology or "sub-acute" care. Such patients include those in need of intravenous antibiotic therapy, ventilators, oxygen, feeding tubes or pumps, decubitus ulcer care (bed sores), etc. Feeding pumps and bed sores may eventually become a way of life for AD patients. AD patients may also require other forms of sub acute care and can be on Medicaid. Many of the existing nursing homes are not capable of handling such patients who often must be placed out of county. These difficult patients are frequently placed out of county or at great distance from their homes within the county, creating added burdens on elderly spouses and family members. The burden of out of county placement has created or intensified "separation syndrome" accidents and death for such patients elderly spouses. Implementation of the Diagnostic Related Grouping (DRG) system of Medicare reimbursement has been an incentive for hospitals to release patients as soon as they are no longer in need of "acute care," but due to the inability to place these patients, they stay in hospitals longer than necessary, resulting in a much higher expense than would be the case if a nursing home placement could be achieved. Additionally "cost shifting' to private and third party insurance payments may be inferred from the DRG statistics admitted. Both Lee Memorial Hospital and Ft. Myers Community Hospital experience difficulty in placing sub-acute care patients, especially those on Medicaid. Fifty per cent or more of Ft. Myers Community Hospital referrals are of sub-acute care patients. Ft. Myers Community Hospital records reflect an increase in hold-overs due to unavailability of nursing home beds. Since October, 1984, Lee Memorial Hospital has had to place 75 out of 941 discharge patients out of county. Only one of these patients was private pay. The majority of Lee Memorial discharges to nursing homes are Medicaid and Medicare patients; 48.3% are Medicare and 22.6% are Medicaid patients for a total of 70.9% of the total discharges to nursing homes. Only 29% of Lee Memorial discharges-to nursing homes are private pay patients. Twenty per cent of all of Lee Memorial's Medicaid discharges to nursing homes are required to be placed out of county and 11.2% of their Medicare discharges are placed out of the County. Mary Shell, the DHRS District Human Services Coordinator confirmed the difficulty of placing Medicaid patients in the county as sub-district and testified to a serious but unquantified shortage of both Medicaid and sub-acute nursing home beds in Lee County. Mr. Dennis Eskew, Supervisor of the DHRS Adult Payments Unit, which determines the eligibility for Medicaid nursing home programs, presented a chart (HCR 15) showing 20% of 203 approved Medicaid patients (41) had to be placed out of county during the immediately preceding six months because of unavailability of such beds in Lee County. Existing nursing homes in Lee County are almost always full. Hospital discharge planners, families, and medical physicians seeking placement of patients uniformly testified that there is a shortage of beds and long waiting periods, even for non-problematic patients and that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for all types of patients including Medicare/Medicaid patients, sub-acute patients, AD patients and routine nursing home patients. However, these witnesses did not attempt to quantify the number of beds needed. There is strong evidence that recently opened nursing homes are not making available promised Medicaid beds and there have been no DHRS enforcement procedures. Although minimally demonstrated, it may be inferred from the foregoing type of testimony that the absence of competition has reduced the incentive of existing local nursing homes to accept those out of the "walkie talkie" category, those still cognitive, ambulatory patients who are able to feed and care for themselves to a large degree. Both Petitioners meet the guidelines in the local health plan that applicants should provide at least 33 1/3% of beds available to Medicaid patients. HCR agreed to provide 46% Medicaid beds (55 beds out of 120) which was the prevailing district rate. The plan gives priority to those applicant who meet this percentage. Manor agrees only to provide 35% Medicaid beds. Both Petitioners indicate a willingness to treat sub- acute patients, but neither seeks a specific number of beds for this purpose. Sub-acute care is considered within the designation of skilled care. Manor Care's emphasis on rehabilitation in its existing facilities has had significant results. Manor Care's historical Medicare percentage is above the industry average. Both Petitioners are in the forefront of developing programs for the diagnosis and treatment of AD disease. Manor Care is prepared to totally commit 18 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 21 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. HCR is prepared to totally commit 32 beds exclusively to AD and related diseases and 55 beds to Medicaid. These may overlap. The special attributes of each proposed AD unit (30 beds by HCR and 18 beds by Manor Care) include a higher staff-to- patient ratio, which is needed to supervise and assist confused and wandering patients and a great deal of attention to the physical environment, from a home-like atmosphere and certain relaxing shades of pink, to special furnishing and fixtures. Particular care is necessary in preparation and serving of food, to allow patients with AD and related disorders to eat adequately and without assistance and to prevent considerable weight loss in the wandering stage which can result in further rapid debilitation. One of the goals of AD programs is to reduce the need for traditionally utilized physical restraints or heavy sedation, and to promote prolonged individual functioning. There is no competent expert testimony contrary to the theme that AD patients require special care and special programs designed to meet their unique medical and custodial needs. The experts with any personal background in the area also uniformly agreed that a separate wing or another isolated area of the nursing home facility is most desirable because of the wandering tendencies of these patients, their hostile, unpredictable, and bizarre behavior, and the other special needs specific to this type of brain degeneration. HCR's Wander Guard security system is viewed as superior by some witnesses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DHRS enter a Final Order approving HCR's updated application for a 120 nursing home bed facility in Lee County limited and conditioned upon HCR's updated application's specific provision for 46% Medicaid beds and upon 30 beds being dedicated as set out in the application and evidence at formal hearing for the specific for treatment of AD patients, and denying the application of Manor Care for a 60 bed facility. DONE and Ordered this 23rd day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadaden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Rodriguez, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 APPENDIX_ The following paragraphs constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact as required by Section 120.59(2) F.S. Petitioner Manor Care's Proposals: Covered in Findings of Fact 1, 3. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 9-12. Sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact 4; remainder rejected as taken out of context and not clear from the record as a whole. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Up to the comma covered in Findings of Fact 12; after the comma accepted but not adopted as unnecessary. Covered in part in Finding of Fact 12; remainder accepted but unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 12. 16-19. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Proposals 9, 14, and 15 are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Petitioner Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America's_ Proposals: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 2. sentence 1 is covered in Finding of Fact remainder rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 3 Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 10-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 12.a. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 10. 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 19. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 20-22. Covered in Finding of Fact 4; rejected in part as not supported by the record. 23-24. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. 27-32. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 38-39. Are accepted in principle but rejected in their specificity as subordinate, unnecessary and cumulative. To a large degree the same subject matter is covered in Findings of Fact 8-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 43-49. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. What is not covered is rejected as subordinate, unnecessary, and cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-10. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOe. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Accepted in principle but as stated is too broad and applies to situations outside of nursing home beds. Rejected in part as taken out of context and with insufficient predicate and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. What is accepted is covered in Finding of Fact 11. 60. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 64. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, particularly 10. 66. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12, particularly lOd. 67-69. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinate and/or cumulative. 70. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 71-73. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11, what is rejected is rejected as unnecessary, subordinates and/or cumulative. Covered in Findings of Fact 10-11. Covered in Findings of Fact 9-12. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 11-12. 77-90. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Matters rejected are rejected as not supported by the record or as contrary to the appropriate application of law and incipient policy. See Conclusions of Law. Represents the sum total of all the Findings of Fact made and is more in the nature of a conclusion of law. See Conclusions of Law. Rejected as covered in Finding of Fact 6, and the Conclusions of Law. 93-95. Accepted and incorporated in Finding of Fact 12. 96. Covered in Findings of Fact 6, 11, and 12. Proposals 3, 15, 17, 18, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 65, are accepted but not adopted because subordinate and unnecessary. Respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposals: 1-2. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 3. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Covered in Findings of Fact 3 and 12. 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 3. 7-9. Covered in Findings of Fact 3, 5, and 6._ 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. 11. Accepted but not specifically set out in Findings of Fact. Sentences 1-2 are accepted and sentence 3 is rejected in Finding of Fact 6 and in the Conclusions of Law. Rejected for the reasons set out in Finding of Fact 6 and Conclusions of Law. Covered in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 and Conclusions of Law. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. Rejected as out of context and immaterial to the facts as found. Similar material is covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 9-12. Rejected as set out in Findings of Fact 6, and 9-12 and as a conclusion of law. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES MANOR CARE, INC., Petitioner, CASE NO. 85-2937 vs. CON NO. 3850 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, d/b/a HEARTLAND OF LEE, Petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. / CASE NO. 85-3240 CON NO. 3854
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner originally applied for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 180 bed community nursing home in Broward County, Florida. By stipulation, the Petitioner's application was amended to be an application for a certificate of need for 120 nursing home beds at a cost of $4,600,000. Stipulation filed August 9, 1985. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for 120 nursing home beds in Broward County. T. 25. The parties agree that need is to be determined in this case by application of rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Prehearing Stipulation, pp. 2-3. In the case at bar, the relevant district is District X, which is Broward County and is not subdivided into subdistricts. T. 147. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)1-4, which is applicable to this case, requires use of the following data and abbreviations: The number of licensed beds ("LB"). The current district population age 65-74 (POPC"). The current district population age 75+ ("POPD"). The district population age 65-74 projected three years ahead ("POPA"). The district population age 75+ projected three years ahead ("POPB"). The average occupancy rate for licensed nursing home beds in the district ("OR"). The number of nursing home beds in the district which have received CON approval but are not yet licensed ("approved beds"). HRS gathers data-from local health councils as to the number of patients in a given nursing home on the first day of each month, and this data, collected in six month segments, is compiled into a semiannual occupancy report. T. 145-46. Joint Exhibit 17 is the semiannual census report and bed need allocation published June 3, 1985, and contains data collected on the first days of the months of October-December 1984 and January-March, l98. T. 147; Joint Exhibit 17. The population figures to be used in this case are from the office of the Governor, and neither party disputes the accuracy of these figures. Relying upon the data in Joint Exhibit 17, HRS concluded that there is only a net need for 11 community nursing home beds in District X on the date of the hearing. Joint Exhibit 17, Joint Exhibit 15, T. 150. This was correctly calculated in Petitioner's proposed finding of fact 20: Underlying data: LB = 2,875 POPC = 157,371 POPD = 104,860 POPA = 168,793 POPB = 124,570 OR = 87.59 percent Approved beds = 415 Calculations: Bed rates: BA = LB POPC + (6 x POPD) = 2,875 157,371 + (6 x 104,860) = 2,765 786,531 = 3.65/1,000 BB = 6 x BA = 6 x 3.65/1,000 = 21.93/1,000 Age-adjusted bed total: A = (POPA x BA) + (POPB x BB) = (168,793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) 1,000 ( 1,000) = (168.793 x 3.65) + (124,570 x 21.93) = 617 + 2,732 = 3,349 Occupancy-adjusted total: SA = A x OR 90 = 3,349 x 87.59 90 = 3,259 Deduction for licensed & approved beds: Net beds = SA - LB - .9 (approved beds) = 3,259 - 2,875 - .9 (415) = 384 - 373 Net beds = 11 Beverly Manor was licensed as a community nursing home for 120 beds on May 13, 1985. T. 140-41, 151; Petitioner's Exhibit 16. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has a policy to use May 1, 1985, as the cutoff date for Counting licensed nursing home beds for the June 1985 semiannual report, and based on that policy, did not consider the licensed beds at Beverly Manor in calculating bed need in Joint Exhibit 17 and 15. T. 149, 151-52. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services uses a variety of other cutoff dates in compiling the semiannual report. Poverty data is from 1980. Approved bed count is from May 1, 1985. Population data is from January 1985. T. 148-50. The reason offered by HRS for using May 1, 1985, for a cutoff date for counting licensed nursing home beds was to give HRS employees enough time to put all the data together t issue the semiannual report on the due date, June 1985. T. 159-60. Daystar, Inc., is reported to be a 44 bed nursing home in District X on Joint Exhibit 17. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services includes in the semiannual report all nursing homes that are licensed by the HRS office of licensure and certification. T. 152. HRS included Daystar, Inc., on the semiannual report. Id. Daystar, Inc., operates a 44 bed facility far Christian Scientists that does not offer medical treatment or medication of any kind, but relies solely upon spiritual healing. T. 36-37. On September 29, 1981, certificate of need number 1746 was issued to Colonial Palms Nursing Home East. Petitioner's Exhibit 18. The termination date was extended to March 27, 1983. Id. Three days before the termination date, HRS issued an amended certificate of need number 1746, to Colonial Palms, Inc. to construct the 120 beds in two phases. Phase I was the addition of 46 beds to an existing facility, which HRS did not name, and phase II was to construct a new 74 bed nursing home facility. Petitioner's Exhibit 19. On April 5, 1983, a Robert T. Held wrote to HRS on "Colonial Palms Nursing Home" letterhead stating that construction regarding certificate of need 1746 had commenced. On June 3, 1985, a William R. Meyer spoke with a Ruth Dixon, Control Clerk, Broward County Permit Bureau, and Ms. Dixon advised Mr. Meyer that no building permit had been issued to Colonial Palms West at 51 West Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 or to Bodee Construction Company for 74 beds. Ms. Dixon further advised Mr. Meyer that "Colonial Palms" has not been issued a building permit since 1983, and that she checked both addresses of Colonial Palms and under the construction company in her investigation. HRS takes the position that the Colonial Palms Certificate of need for 74 new beds is still valid since it is still on its approved list and has not been taken off as void. T. 156-57. The foregoing evidence is not sufficient to conclude that certificate of need lumber 1746 is void in whole or in part due to failure to commence construction. The evidence is ambiguous as to which entity holds the certificate of need or which entity was checked for construction permits, and there is no evidence as to whether construction could have been initiated without a construction permit on file in Broward County. Moreover, the Broward County evidence is hearsay, and although there has been no objection to it, the Hearing Officer independently does not regard it to be sufficient, pursuant to section 120.58(1)(a), Fla. Stat., to be relied upon. Finally, it is entirely unclear what type of construction, undertaken by what entity, would be required for this certificate of need to satisfy the "commence construction" requirement. Colonial Palms was not licensed for an additional 46 beds until January 18, 1985, and thus it had only 81 licensed beds on the first of January, 1985; thus, the occupancy report for Colonial Palms for January, 1985, should have been 83 patients in 81 licensed beds. T. 154; Petitioner's Exhibit 13. The "occupancy rate" contained in the semiannual reports, Joint Exhibit 17 and Petitioner's Exhibit 9, is calculated by dividing the total of the patient census in all nursing homes on the first of each month for the six month reporting period by the total of all licensed nursing home beds for those same facilities during the same months. T. 161. Petitioner's Exhibit 10 is an example of how HRS makes this calculation. Id. As a result of adding the 120 licensed beds at Beverly Manor, the "licensed beds" (LB) figure in the formula increases to 2,995, and "approved beds" changes from 415 to 295. The correction to the January 1985 licensed beds at Colonial Palms (corrected to 81 licensed beds), results in a change to the "occupancy rate" from 87.59 percent as reported in Joint Exhibit 17, to 88.06 percent. This calculation is derived from Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 13, and 14. The patient census for October 1984 through March 1985 was 13,051. The licensed beds total for the same months, however, would be 14,820, which is the result of subtracting 46 beds from Colonial Palms for January 1985. The result, 13,051 divided by 14,820, is 88.06 percent. In the past, HRS has granted partial approval of a lesser number of beds than sought by the applicant for a certificate of need. T. 142. The computations contained in conclusion of law paragraph 10 are found to be the correct computation of need pursuant to the rule, and are hereby incorporated by reference as a finding of fact.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended, subject to paragraph 12 above, that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue to the Petitioner, Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Regents Park of Broward, a certificate of need to construct and operate 120 community nursing home beds in District X. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of November 1985, 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 6th day of November, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3297 The following proposed findings of fact by Petitioner are adopted herein, if these proposed findings have not already been adopted in the findings of fact: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20 and 21. The following proposed findings were concerned with the December 1984 semiannual report, and thus are not relevant since better and more current data, the June 1985 semiannual report, exists: 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16. See conclusions of law 2-6. The following proposed findings are rejected to the extent that they concern exclusion of Daystar, Inc., data, or to the extent that they are based upon exclusion of Colonial Palms data due to the theory that the Colonial Palms certificate of need is void due to failure to commence construction: 18, 22, and 23. The rejection of these factual matters has been explained in findings of fact 14-16 and conclusions of law 7-9. Proposed finding 24 is rejected as irrelevant, since a net bed need is shown by the rule formula. See rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)10. Moreover, even if the net bed need, which is called the "net bed allocation" by the rule, were zero, the facts proposed in finding of fact 24 are not of the type permitted under this exception of the rule. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul V. DeBianchi, P.A. 2601 East Oakland Park Blvd. Suite #500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Charles M. Loeser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Health Quest Corporation 315 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, Indiana 46601-1586 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
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 broad issue for resolution is whether FHFC's application meets the criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. FHFC contends that its application meets all the criteria in Section 381.494(6)(c) F.S., and when (1)(k) of Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. is properly applied, a net need for at least 93 beds results. DHRS contends that a need for only 17 beds exists when the numerical need methodology is applied consistent with its current policy. DHRS did not present any evidence on any criteria other than need. The more specific issue to be determined in this proceeding is focused on the data for current and future population used to calculate numerical need under Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. FHFC contends that the most recently released population estimates and projections should be used; DHRS asserts that the data available at the time of the application should be used. The parties' differing results in the net bed need (93 beds, as opposed to 17 beds) are based upon those separate theories for application of the rule.
Findings Of Fact FHFC currently operates a 120-bed nursing home in Polk County, on the northeastern outskirts of the City of Lakeland. Its application for an additional 60 beds was submitted in July 1985, in time for the July 1985 batching cycle. The application was deemed complete and was later denied in December 1985. The cover letter from HRS dated December 9, 1985, accompanying the State Agency Action Report, "SAAR", states the basis for denial: "There is insufficient need for the project proposed for this subdistrict at this time." Comments within the SAAR explain that the application of the methodology in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. results in insufficient need for the project proposed by the applicant. "...Further, nursing home utilization within Polk County does not warrant the addition of nursing home beds at this time." (SAAR, P. 9, Petitioner's exhibit No. 2) Walter Eugene Nelson is a health planning consultant and former administrator of the HRS Office of Comprehensive Health Planning, the office responsible for administering the certificate of need program. He was tendered by Petitioner and was accepted, without objection, as an expert in health care planning and nursing home CON reviews. Mr. Nelson prepared a break-out of the need methodology described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k) F.A.C. With one significant exception, his application of the methodology conforms to that of Herbert Straughn, HRS' expert witness. For the factors related to current and projected population (POPA, POPB, POSC and POSD), Mr. Nelson used data released from the Office of the Governor in January 1987. Mr. Straughn used data available as of the date of the application, that is, data released on July 1, 1985. Both parties agree that "current population" is that population at the time of application, July 1985. The projected horizon year population is three years later, or July 1988. Both parties agree that the source of the data is the official estimates and projections adopted by the Office of the Governor. Actual population census counts are made every ten years. During the decennium, population figures are extrapolated and updated through current data on utility hook-ups, building permits, employment, school enrollment and similar sources. When the data is applied to population in a future date, the resultant population count is called a "projection"; when the data is applied to population for a current or past date, the population count is called an "estimate". The Office of the Governor revises and updates its population estimates and projections every six months. Sometimes the figures are adjusted upward, sometimes downward. In the opinion of Eugene Nelson, the later-released figures are more accurate. In this instance, as to the figures released in July 1985, for the current (July 1985) population, the "estimates" were really projections since the data was collected in Spring 1985, before the relevant period. By January 1987, the estimates for the July 1985 population had the advantage of hindsight and the projections for the population in July 1988 had the advantage of data collected between July 1985 and January 1987. Herbert Straughn contends that the estimates and projections released in July 1985 are more appropriate. His explanation is best expressed in his own words: * * * [direct examination by Mr. Powell] Q What set of population figures did you use in your calculations? [response by Mr. Straughn] A I used the populations that were current at the time of the submission of the application, that being of July, 1985, and then the proper planning horizon of July, 1988. Q Why did you use those figures? A Because it more truly reflects the entire set of data that the Department sees fit to use on calculating bed need during or prior to, an administrative hearing. Q Why do you-all consider that to be more appropriate? A Because, well, because it more truly reflects the entire set of data by which to derive the methodology, that, you know, including the population, the occupancy, the number of licensed beds, and the number of approved beds. Q Well, just referring to the population, which Mr. Nelson has used a different set of figures, which set is the better set of figures to use, current as of the date of the application? A Well, I know it could be the current, or the date of the application, because then it truly reflects the input of the other set of data to derive the methodology to come up to the number of beds either needed, or not needed. Q Which figures do you consider more accurate, so far as population figures? A I would consider these that were current at the time that we did the analysis. Q Why? A Well, contrary, I think, to what Mr. Nelson says, that the closer that you can get to the population at the time you do the review, based on the ten-year span of when the population, or census, is taken, because it's taken every ten years, the further you get away from the base year, I think that the calculations that get further away from the base year, therefore, become less accurate. Q Would you say less reliable? A And less reliable. * * * (transcript, pgs. 89-90) As recently as September 1986, HRS used the most current available population data in its bed need methodology. Even now HRS still uses the approved bed figures available at the time the SAAR is signed, rather than at the time the application is submitted. Herbert Staughn's break-out of the methodology, Respondent's exhibit No. 1, reflects on its face the updated adjustment of another variable: "licensed beds" ("LBD" in the rule formula). His break-out initially included 1685 licensed beds, but shortly before the hearing this figure was adjusted downward to 1655 licensed beds after it was determined that Johnson Health Center's 30 beds were sheltered nursing home beds which are not applied in computing net need for community nursing home beds. Both parties apply an occupancy rate in the Polk County subdistrict of 84.9 percent. Herbert Straughn contends that this rate indicates lack of need, as it is less than an alleged minimum standard of 90 percent occupancy. This "minimum standard" is not described by rule or statute, nor was it adequately explained by the HRS expert. The CON review criteria listed in the SAAR correspond, in substance, to the review criteria in Section 381.494(b)(c) F.S. and Rule 10-5.011 F.A.C. The SAAR is used by the agency as a convenient check list to inform an applicant of the extent to which the criteria are satisfied. There are criteria, other than need, identified in the checklist. In its case FHFC presented affirmative testimony that each criteria was met by the applicant. The only evidence presented by HRS related to need as addressed in paragraphs Nos. 8, 9 and 10, above. FHFC presented no evidence of special circumstances pursuant to Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.j. F.A.C. This provision applies in the event that the net bed allocation is zero. FHFC's break out of the bed need methodology yielded a net bed allocation of 93 beds for the planning horizon year 1988. HRS' break out yielded an allocation of 17 beds.
The Issue Whether petitioner should be granted a certificate of need to build a 120- bed nursing and extended care facility in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application be denied for failure to meet licensing criteria contained in Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1984, the Petitioner, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, applied for a certificate of need for 120 community nursing home beds in Palm Beach County, Florida. In July, 1984, the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) gave notice of initial intention to deny the application. HRS Exhibit 5. The instant proceedings are the result of the request of the Petitioner for a formal administrative hearing from that denial. On January 22, 1986, the parties jointly moved for a continuance of the final hearing in this case then scheduled to commence on February 3, 1986, and in paragraphs 3 through 6, represented that the purpose of the requested continuance was to allow the Petitioner to gather data as to two alleged underserved groups: patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease and sub-acute care patients. The Petitioner asserted that such data would support an amended, updated application for certificate of need to be filed by the Petitioner for the purpose of showing need pursuant to the special exception allowed in the rules. In paragraph 8 of the motion, HRS agreed to give serious consideration to the updated application and supporting documents. The motion was granted by order dated February 3, 1986, and at the request of both parties, the final hearing was reset for April 3, 1986. The parties have agreed that all statutory and rule criteria have been satisfied by the Petitioner in this case except for the issue of need as determined by rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, and that question is the sole issue in this case. T. 5; Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. Petitioner's initial application did not mention the intention to provide special services for victims of Alzheimer's disease, and the Petitioner did not amend or update its application with HRS in that respect, except to the extent that it presented such testimony in the formal administrative hearing. T. 104. The application is not in evidence. The initial review of Petitioner's application by HRS did not consider special services to Alzheimer's patients. T. 117; HRS Exhibit 5. HRS has adopted rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, to determine need for additional community nursing home beds. Using a planning horizon of 1987, which is 3 years after the date of application, the rule calculates a net surplus of 511 community nursing home beds for Palm Beach County. Even using the 1989 planning horizon, there is still a net zero bed need using the rule formula for Palm Beach County. T. 100; HRS Exhibit 2; T. 97 and 102. Alzheimer's disease is a degenerative process of the brain characterized primarily by loss of memory and impairment of a variety of routine functions. T. 160-161. Diagnosis of the disease is difficult since there are related degenerative mental disorders. Moreover, positive diagnosis typically requires examination of brain tissue, and the process of obtaining brain tissue is intrusive. T. 162-163. For these reasons, the diagnosis is typically of "senile dementia of the Alzheimer-type," or Alzheimer's disease or related disorders. T. 163. The cause of the condition is not known, although research into possible surgical techniques to ameliorate the effects is being conducted in the Jupiter, Florida, area. T. 73. Alzheimer's disease primarily afflicts elderly persons, although some younger persons may also be victims. T. 163. Person suffering from Alzheimer's disease typically have memory loss, communicative problems, aphasia, trouble understanding, confusion, disorientation, inability to recognize care givers, waking at night, interrupting the care giver's sleep, wandering, mealtime problems, inappropriate sexual activity, incontinence, and social disfunctions. T. 184. Such persons exhibit negative behavior such as resistence to care, demanding, aggression, anger, emotional outbursts due to inability to perform routine tasks, and delusions. Id. Four stages of progressive degeneration are expected with Alzheimer's disease. The first is forgetfulness and loss of ability to perform complex tasks which formerly could be performed. In the second stage, communication problems occur and also loss of memory as to the names of common objects. Wandering and becoming lost also may occur. Stage three is characterized by physical deterioration such as loss of weight, incontinence, and loss of control of other bodily functions. In the fourth stage, a patient will become unable to communicate at all, and may become comatose and bedridden. The course of the disease is from 12 to 16 years or longer and can involve many of the problems described above. T. 217-218. A family member is usually the person first required to provide care for an Alzheimer's victim. T. 165. The responsibilities caused by such care, and the manner in which the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease are exhibited, cause the family care-giver to feel trapped, fatigued, depressed, angry, resentful, and frustrated. T. 167. At times, the family care-giver is elderly and can suffer health problems from the responsibility. T. 82-83. The burden upon the family member can be alleviated by day care, which involves care only during the day, and respite care, which can involve overnight care for several days. T. 167, 147-148. Day care and respite care can also serve the function of establishing a relationship with staff and collection of data and records, both of which become useful for the time when the patient's disease progresses to the point that continuous inpatient care is required. T. 83, 220-223. Alzheimer's patients in a nursing home need special care directed toward their particular disability described above. Of primary concern is that the nursing home be structured to provide an environment that minimizes confusion and compensates for the disabilities of the Alzheimer's disease victim. Separation from other elderly residents, who are not cognitively impaired, is important to prevent confusion of the Alzheimer's patient and to protect the other residents from disruptive intrusions. The physical facility should be constructed and furnished so as to minimize confusion and stimulation. Colors should be subdued, flooring should not mute the sound of footsteps, patterns should not be used, and common appliances should have distinguishing shapes and be clearly identified or labeled. Spaces for quiet and for wandering should be provided. Features to compensate for forgetfulness, such as lights which automatically turn on when a door is opened, should be provided. T. 219- 227, 57-58, 63-64, 81. Staffing must be trained to recognize and help alleviate problems that arise from behavior caused by Alzheimer's disease. T. 74-75, 234- 235, 80, 83-84. Finally, since Alzheimer's disease patients become upset with change due to recognition and memory impairment, continuity of care (staffing and physical surroundings) becomes important. T. 221, 223, 78, 82-83. Alzheimer's disease victims who need inpatient care also need all of the normal forms of skilled nursing care that other elderly persons need. This may occur over a course of years, or may be the results of a sudden injury, such as a broken hip. T. 220-223, 147-148, 79. As discussed above, it is important to be able to provide such care in the same facility since continuity of care is so important, and transfers to new surroundings are disruptive. Any current holder of a certificate of need for community nursing home beds in Palm Beach County may, if it wishes, provide special services to persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease. T. 122. Existing nursing homes in Palm Beach County accept Alzheimer's disease victims, but none provide special services for these patients except perhaps Darcy Hall, which provides adult day care. T. 143, 76, 82, 168-169, 171, 200-201, 210-211. Existing adult congregate living centers and adult day care centers in Palm Beach County similarly do not have special services or programs for victims of Alzheimer's disease. T. 145. Existing nursing homes could provide such services to Alzheimer's patients, though approval of HRS by expedited review to change substructure might be required, but none has done so. T. 154. Alzheimer's patients are often inappropriately restrained, or mixed with non-Alzheimer's disease patients. T. 77. Dr. Eugene Loeser is a physician, board certified in neurology, and is in private practice in Jupiter, Florida. T. 157-158. Dr. Loeser created a list of questions to ask physicians in Palm Beach County to explore the need for special nursing home programs for Alzheimer's disease patients, and that list of questions is HRS Exhibit 8. T. 169, 186-189. Using these questions Dr. Loeser conducted a survey of 36 physicians in Palm Beach County, which included 8 family practitioners, 10 internists, 14 neurologists, 2 neurosurgeons, and 2 psychiatrists. T. 170. There are approximately 1,000 physicians in Palm Beach County, T. 31, and Dr. Loeser admitted that his survey was only of a small percentage. T. 170. Dr. Loeser did not attempt to make the survey statistically valid. T. 178. The physicians contacted were selected from the telephone book from Jupiter in the north to Lake Worth in the south. T. 171, 183. Dr. Loeser attempted to contact representatives of several specialities. T. 181. The specialities were selected as those likely to see Alzheimer's patients. T. 170. Of the 36 physicians contacted, 35 had seen patients having Alzheimer's disease. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Of these, 27 physicians had "difficulty in finding appropriate placement" for these patients in terms of supervision, care and treatment. Petitioner's Exhibit 5; HRS Exhibit 8. The same number of physicians felt that facilities with appropriate programs for placement of Alzheimer's disease or similar disorder patients were not presently available in Palm Beach County. Id. From the responses, Dr. Loeser estimated that these physicians had seen somewhat more than 600 patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease or related disorders in the last year. T. 171. Dr. Loeser personally estimated that he typically had difficulty finding a treatment and care facility for about 10 Alzheimer's disease patients annually. T. 185. He then estimated from responses received that the physicians surveyed were unable to find an appropriate program for about 135 patients annually. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Dr. Loeser further estimated that among his own patients, about one or two per week needed some form of day care, T. 185, and from the responses of the physicians in the survey, estimated that such physicians annually had 150 patients needing day care. T. 175. Determination of placement problems for Alzheimer's disease patients from actual patient records or placement orders from physicians would be difficult because these records are confidential. Consent from the patient would be needed, and consent from an Alzheimer patient would be difficult due to the nature of the mental impairment caused by the disease. T. 173. The survey conducted by Dr. Loeser was not unreasonable for failure to contact more physicians. The survey accurately reflects a group of Alzheimer's disease patients treated by the physicians contacted, and does not purport to account for Alzheimer's disease patients treated by other physicians. Thus, the need identified by Dr. Loeser's survey, while underinclusive of total need, is reasonably accurate for the need identified. Palm Beach County currently has at least an estimated 16,597 persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease, and this number is expected to be 18,172 by 1988. T. 24. HRS itself estimates that the number of Alzheimer's victims in Palm Beach County in 1986 to be 27,200. Petitioner's Exhibit 6. It is further estimated that approximately 80 percent of such patients will require some sort of custodial care in the future. T. 76. Based upon the foregoing statistics, as well as the fact that existing Palm Beach County nursing homes do not provide special services or care for Alzheimer's disease patients, there is a need for the Alzheimer facility proposed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner proposes to establish a 120 bed nursing home in Palm Beach County designed and staffed to provide care and treatment to meet the special needs of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. T. 45. The Petitioner, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, is willing to have any certificate of need issued in this case to be conditioned upon it building, developing, and operating the proposed nursing home limited as it has proposed in this formal administrative hearing. T. 48-49. Thus, findings of fact 18 through 21 which follow relate to the manner in which the Petitioner proposes that a certificate of need may be conditioned and limited. The proposed physical design of the nursing facility is set forth in Petitioner's Exhibit 1. T. 49. The cost is estimated to be $3.7 million. T. The design includes a courtyard to allow patients to wander safely. T. 41. It also includes a shaded porch, an outdoor patio, and a lounge off the patio. Id. Security from wandering is proposed to be provided by a "Wanderguard" system of wristbands and sensing devices that sound an alarm as a patient passes an exit point. Id. Additionally, the proposed facility would have a therapeutic residential kitchen for patients still able to use a residential kitchen. Id. One room would be set aside as a quiet room. T. 42. It is contemplated that such a room will minimize the need for calming drugs. T. 224. Also to be provided are separate dining areas, areas for therapy, and separate nursing wings and sub-acute care wings. T. 42-43. Alzheimer patients would be separated from non-Alzheimer patients, fixtures would have shapes, colors, and labels to facilitate identification; wall and floor coverings would not use patterns, and the flooring would be vinyl or tile instead of carpet. T. 42, 225-228. The proposed plan of the facility contemplates that there be space for all stages of care for Alzheimer's patients: day care, respite care, nursing care, and sub-acute care. Petitioner's Exhibit 1; T. 221-222, 39-40, 56. The Petitioner also proposes to provide individual treatment plans, to include physical therapy, occupational therapy, social work, and recreational therapy. T. 230-231. Support groups for family members of the patient will be provided. T. 233. The Petitioner states that the staff for the proposed facility must be appropriately trained to know Alzheimer's disease and the special needs of these patients. T. 234. Ongoing education for staff is viewed as being imperative. Id. The Petitioner recognizes the need to provide greater staffing for peak periods. T. 235. Monthly in-service training will be provided by the parent corporation. T. 236. Moreover, the parent corporation, Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, will develop and implement a program of staff training specifically for Alzheimer's disease. T. 237. Staff for the proposed facility will be adequately trained to properly deal with the problems of Alzheimer's patients. For a 24 hour period, a staff to patient ratio of 1 to 2.5 will be provided. T. 238. This ratio includes only nursing staff, aides, and activities and occupational rehabilitation staff. Id. The Petitioner proposes to designate and commit its entire facility to Alzheimer's patients. T. 60. But from a fiscal point of view, the Petitioner proposes to not deny admission to persons not having Alzheimer's disease. T. 66-68. At least 60 beds will be dedicated to patients with Alzheimer's disease, and these are expected to fill with persons in stages two and three of the disease. T. 67-68. When these patients reach more advanced stages of their disease, it is expected that they will be treated in the other 60 bed section, which is skilled nursing and sub-acute care. T. 68; Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Thus, the Petitioner expects ultimately to fill its entire facility with Alzheimer's disease patients consistent with its dedication and purpose. The facility proposed by the Petitioner would meet the unique needs of Alzheimer's disease patients and their families, and would be the only facility in Palm Beach County to provide a wide spectrum of care for Alzheimer's disease patients. Petitioner's proposal is consistent with priorities IV, V 3 and 4, and VI, Long Term Care section, District IX Health Plan (1985). T. 150-152. On March 6, 1986, the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sent a memorandum to "all attorneys" construing and implementing the decision in the Gulf Court case, Gulf Court Nursing Center v. DHRS, 10 F.L.W. 1983 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). On the next day, Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator, Community Medical Facilities, Officer of Health Planning and Development, sent the memorandum to his staff and told them to use the opinion as a guideline for the initial review of a CON application settlement and preparation for hearings. HRS Exhibit 6. HRS recognizes that there are three ways that an applicant for a certificate of need for nursing home beds can show need even though the rule shows a zero bed need. The third way is for "equivalent assessments" to be submitted by "attending physician." T. 113; HRS Exhibit 4, rule 10- 5.11(21)(b)10, F.A.C. HRS staff construes rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, F.A.C., as requiring that each attending physician of each Alzheimer's patient document that his or her patient is in need of specialized services and that the patient is without access to those special services. T. 124. The issuance of certificate of need 4194 to the Joseph L. Morse Geriatric Center was issued pursuant to the special circumstances exception of rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, F.A.C., since the rule did not show bed need. T. 127. There was nothing in the application in that case to show that elderly Jewish persons were denied access to existing nursing home facilities in Palm Beach County. Id. See also T. 130. There was, however, evidence that a large group of elderly Jewish persons were not being provided kosher dietary services at existing nursing homes. T. 129, 134. This evidence was not presented by attending physicians, however. T. 136. The certificate of need 4194 to the Joseph L. Morse Geriatric Center was also approved using priority VI, long term care section, District 9 local health plan, which provides in the second sentence for consideration of "ethnic- type services including special dietary requirements . . . ." HRS Exhibit 7; T. 134. Due to changes in federal funding, patients needing sub-acute care (less than hospital care, but more than an ordinary nursing home) do not qualify for cost reimbursement. T. 85-88. It appears that about one-half of all nursing home admissions in Palm Beach County are for three months or less. This may be a pool of persons needing sub-acute care. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Long Term Care Section, page 4; T. 27-28. There was other general testimony that there was a "need for sub-acute care in Palm Beach County, T. 88, 146, and the local health plan, priority V 4, page 31, supports the grant of a certificate of need to an applicant that will provide such care. Petitioner Exhibit 3. There is also a need for sub-acute care in the final stages of Alzheimer's disease to provide continuity of care. T. 221. See also finding of fact 10. No one has petitioned to intervene in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.494(8)(c), Florida Statutes, issue a certificate of need to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of American, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, for 120 community nursing home beds limited and conditioned upon all such beds being dedicated only to the provision of such services and facilities for victims of Alzheimer's disease as described by the Petitioner in this case and set forth in findings of fact 18 through 21 of this order, with 30 of such beds established for sub-acute care needs of Alzheimer's disease patients. It is further recommended that the certificate of need not contain approval for general community nursing home beds, but be limited to Alzheimer's disease patients. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3337 Pursuant to section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., the following are specific rulings upon all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties which have been rejected in this Recommended Order. Findings of Fact Proposed by the PETITIONER: 7. Sentences 3 and 4 have been rejected because the evidence was not sufficiently complete to describe nursing homes in Florida in general, and because the issue in this case is the need in Palm Beach County, thus making these proposed facts not relevant. 10. Sentence 3 is rejected since the testimony did not clearly show that therapeutic kitchens "should be available." 13. Sentences 9 and 10 are rejected because the evidence did not categorically show that it "would not be possible" to use actual physician orders, or that "physicians do not typically arrange their records so that orders of that kind could be extracted from their records." Similarly sentence 12 is rejected for lack of categorical evidence to prove impossibility. 17. Evidence that the entire facility is "completely fenced and enclosed" cannot be located in the record, and thus sentence 7 is rejected. The bulk of the discussion in proposed finding of fact 20 has been rejected because it is argument or conclusions of law. Those portions of this proposed finding which propose a finding that the Respondent's interpretation of rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, is wrong or unreasonable are rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Most of the factual statements were adopted. Findings of Fact Proposed by the RESPONDENT: All proposed findings of fact by the Respondent have been adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire Laramore & Clark, P.A. 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Health Quest Realty XII, filed an application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), in November, 1982 seeking a certificate of need authorizing the construction of a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida. The original estimated cost of the project was $3,108,000; however, due to the passage of time since the original filing, petitioner now anticipates the cost to be $4,488,000. The proposal will be financially guaranteed by Health Quest Corporation, a corporation with principal offices in South Bend, Indiana. After reviewing the application, HRS issued its proposed agency action advising petitioner that it intended to deny the application. The proposed agency action was not introduced into evidence, but based on the stipulation of the parties, the denial was apparently predicated upon the lack of need for any additional beds in Broward County, Florida. The determination of need for nursing home beds is made pursuant to Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Under the formula contained in that rule, only 101 additional nursing home beds were needed in Broward County, Florida, at the time of final hearing. However, HRS recently granted this allocation of beds to Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America in DOAH Case No. 83-882, Final Order entered on April 4, 1984. Accordingly, no need for any additional beds exists at the present time under the rule. Petitioner principally contended that non-rule factors must be considered in evaluating its application because Broward County is not "normal" within the meaning of the rule. In this regard, it offered evidence to show that Broward County has the fewest beds per capita of the eleven service districts in the state, that the county has a relatively low use of nursing home services by its indigent population, and that the county has a greater number of Medicaid patients per 1,000 indigent elderly than other counties. From this, it concluded that Broward County is abnormal to the extent that more nursing home services must be made available to the elderly indigent. However, these factors are incorporated within the rule and accordingly taken into account when determining need.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Health Quest Realty XII for a certificate of need to construct a 120-bed nursing home facility in Broward County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles M. Loeser, Esquire 315 West Jefferson Boulevard South Bend, Indiana 46601 Jay Adams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 407 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES HEALTH QUEST REALTY XII, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-1892 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. /
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
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Agency For Health Care Administration (AHCA) is responsible for administration of the certificate of need (CON) program pursuant to section 408.034, Florida Statutes. Clearwater Land Company (CLC) is a Florida corporation which owns, operates, and is the license holder of the Regency Oaks Continuing Care Retirement Community (Retirement Community) and Regency Oaks Nursing Center (Regency Oaks) located in Clearwater, Florida. The Johnson Ezell Corporation is a closely held private corporation owned by two shareholders who are also shareholders of CLC. Johnson Ezell provides management, financial services, data processing services, collective purchasing, and other aspects of management for CLC. CLC and Johnson Ezell Corporation are affiliates; two shareholders of Johnson Ezell comprise two out of the four shareholders of CLC. Johnson Ezell is also the contract manager of CLC. Three of the four shareholders of CLC own 100 percent of two other large continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) in Florida. One of these communities, located in Port Charlotte, is known as South Port Square. A second retirement community, Lake Port Square, is in the mid-development stage in Leesburg, Lake County, Florida. Typically, CCRCs offer a broad spectrum of services or a continuum of care ranging from independent living apartments, to assisted living, to skilled nursing which often includes home health care. South Port Square has 440 independent living apartments in which the holders of continuing care agreements reside. South Port also has a 120-bed community skilled nursing facility, originally CON approved in 1984. There are 140 additional units of assisted living. The first phase of the 240 independent living units opened in October of 1987, and the second and final phase of 200 continuing care apartments opened in October of 1990. Lake Port Square currently has 200 continuing care apartments with 205 additional apartments currently under construction. Lake Port also has a 60-bed skilled nursing facility which was originally licensed as a sheltered nursing home facility. It is now a licensed community nursing home. Lake Port also has 35 units of assisted living. Beverly Savana Cay Manor, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. The Beverly family of companies operates 838 nursing homes in 48 states. It is the largest provider of long-term care services in the country. Beverly Savana Cay Manor will receive substantial financial, managerial, operational and program support from Beverly Enterprises Florida's regional office. These are specific services which will be available to Beverly's proposed project from its parent's Florida regional office: A nurse consultant who is a former director of nursing will monitor the overall performance of the nursing staff and will assist in maintaining quality assurance and proper staffing patterns; a registered dietician will provide consulting dietary services; and a financial consultant will monitor and assist with the orientation of staff on all financial matters, including implementation of the billing system for Medicare and Medicaid. An area manager who is a licensed nursing home administrator will coordinate the support services. Other consulting services available through the Florida regional office include: an activities consultant, a trained social services consultant, a rehabilitation program coordinator, a rehabilitation clinical coordinator, an accounting-finance department, and a quality assurance department that conducts inspections and reviews the facility's compliance with governmental requirements. The regional maintenance department will oversee the care and maintenance of the physical plant. The regional purchasing department coordinates purchases of food, chemicals, and other items more economically purchased in large volumes. The human resources department assists in the implementation of uniform personnel and wage policies, the training of supervisory and managerial personnel, and the monitoring of facility participation in government programs. CLC Project: Regency Oaks CLC filed two CON applications: In CON Application No. 7503 (now withdrawn), it requested approval of a new 120-bed community nursing home through the conversion of 60 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 60 community nursing home beds. CLC also filed CON Application No. 7503P, the subject of this de novo review, to convert Regency Oaks Nursing Center's 60 sheltered nursing home beds to 60 community nursing home beds. CLC's project calls for a reclassification of existing services and assets. There is no capital required, no renovation costs, and no new equipment. The project basically involves moving from one state classification category to another, i.e., sheltered nursing home beds to community nursing home beds. The project under consideration involves Regency Oaks Nursing Center, a 60-bed facility which commenced operations and was licensed in August of 1991. Regency Oaks is a part of a 40-acre campus. The Regency Oaks Retirement Community has approximately 200 units located in a separate five-story structure which also commenced operations in August or September of 1991. There are an additional 201 independent living units in a separate phase that is also located in a separate five-story structure on the campus that is currently under construction. When fully developed, the retirement community's independent living units will be roughly equivalent in size and substantially the same as the operations at its sister communities at Lake Port and South Port. Sheltered nursing home beds are often located in a CCRC. A continuing care provider is authorized to provide a certain number of sheltered nursing home beds based upon the number of independent living apartments that are being constructed, operated and licensed pursuant to Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. Chapter 651 first authorized CCRC's to apply for and receive sheltered nursing home beds in 1986. A CCRC is regulated by statute and markets and provides services pursuant to a continuing care agreement in which the continuing care resident is provided with shelter, food, and some element of health care in exchange for a specified lump sum payment of money and the payment of a monthly maintenance or service fee. The business was largely unregulated until major revisions were incorporated into Chapter 651. Pursuant to section 651.118(4), Florida Statutes, Regency Oaks originally applied for and was granted a CON to construct a 60-bed sheltered nursing home based upon the ratio of one sheltered nursing home bed for every four residential units in the retirement community. The prevailing wisdom in the early 1980's, when Chapter 651 was enacted, held that the 1:4 ratio was appropriate. The underlying assumption was the utilization of the sheltered nursing homes by the residents in the retirement community on a 1:4 ratio should result in a fully occupied and financially feasible nursing center. The ratio also ensured that residents could gain access to nursing home care. In the last half of the 1980's the prevailing wisdom held that the 1:4 ratio was still appropriate but only after allowing for several years of "aging in place" by the residents of the retirement community. To provide needed occupancy during the initial years of operation, subsection 651.118(7) allows the sheltered nursing home to admit residents from outside the resident community for a period of up to five years from the date of the issuance of the original license. For the first five years of operation, the nursing home beds are available to residents and nonresidents of the senior living community. However, at the end of the five year period, the nursing home is not allowed to accept any additional patients from outside the senior living facility because residents alone are expected to need the beds. In 1986, CLC had no intention of converting its CON approved beds to community nursing home beds. For several reasons, including the general health of retirement community residents and their willingness to pay for home health services in order to stay in their own apartment, the 1:4 ratio is no longer a reasonable projection of sheltered nursing home bed need. In the last two years at Regency Oaks, there was an average daily census of 3.5 to 5 patients in Regency Oaks originating from the independent living facility. Of the 200 units, an average daily census of 5 patients converts to a 1:40 ratio rather than the 1:4 ratio that was included in the sheltered bed model. Currently over 90 percent of Regency Oaks' patient days are patients who do not live in the senior housing facility. Without the approval of this project, by September 1996, Regency Oaks will no longer be able to admit outside community residents. Based upon current and projected ratios, this will have an impact on the ability of Regency Oaks to continue to operate in an economical and financially feasible manner. CLC's experience at South Port Square illustrates this problem. The first phase of South Port's independent living apartments has been in operation for 7.5 years. Phase Two has been in operation more than 4.5 years. The demographics of the population area served by Regency Oaks and South Port are almost identical. The South Port community has had 7.5 years to "age in place." For the first ten months of South Port's 1994 fiscal year, 27 percent of the patient days of the South Port's 120-bed skilled nursing center were attributable to contractual requirements of residents of the independent living apartments. Twenty-three percent of the patient days were attributable to campus residents (non- contractual) who were either private pay or some other source of payment. At the top end of the scale, Regency Oaks expects to experience between 25 percent to 30 percent, and up to 40 percent, of its admissions from independent living apartments on campus. CLC does not intend to apply for new sheltered nursing home beds to complement the additional 201 independent living units now under construction. According to its qualified health care planning expert, Mark Richardson, at full build-out, CLC will need to hold (at the high end of the range) 30 beds to fulfill its contractual obligations to its life care residents. (Transcript, pp. 332-3) At full build-out, the approximately 400 independent living units will house 550 to 600 residents, all eligible for nursing home care, when needed, under their continuing care agreements. Beverly's Project: New Crown Beverly proposes a new, 120-bed community nursing home in the Seminole Park area of Pinellas County (New Crown) using 66 beds from the fixed need pool and 54 beds made available from the delicensure of its existing Crown Nursing Center (Old Crown). Granted by CON No. 7505, Old Crown originally was constructed as a motel in the 1940's and has been a nursing home since the 1960's. Although Old Crown currently holds a superior license, the facility is outmoded and is reaching the end of its useful life as a nursing home. There is no room to expand or renovate the existing physical plant, and it is perpetually in need of costly repairs. It is not in compliance with modern building codes and is allowed to continue to operate only by virtue of grandfather clauses. Resident rooms are undersized, and corridors are only 5.5 feet wide rather than the 8 feet currently required. Room doors are narrower than those required in new facilities and will not accommodate moveable beds. Bathroom doors will not accommodate wheelchairs, and there is no central air conditioning. The floor plan also is inconsistent with modern nursing home standards. The building is multistory with outside stairs. This configuration is highly undesirable because it restricts the freedom of movement of residents who are physically impaired, makes it difficult to monitor resident movement, requires extra nursing stations, and slows evacuation in an emergency. Old Crown has one four-bed ward and eight three-bed wards. Space limitations at times require that men and women reside in the same ward. There is no room for specialized services such as adult day care, subacute services or separate Alzheimer's care. Nursing stations are undersized and medical/chemical supplies must be kept in an outdoor shed. Laundry space is inadequate, and linens must be stored outside and in hallways. One room serves as the employee break room, the uniform storage room and the beauty parlor. The kitchen is too small and there is inadequate food storage. The dining area is located in the old motel lobby. Outdoor activities must be conducted in the back parking lot and there is no outdoor ambulation/recreation space. There is only one small space for physical, occupational and speech therapy, requiring that therapies sometimes be administered in hallways or bedside. This arrangement is particularly undesirable for residents receiving speech therapy, as they tend to be self- conscious about their inability to speak, eat and swallow. There is only one activities room, and it is located on the second floor. The second floor contains asbestos, and removal would require the evacuation of the entire second floor. In contrast, New Crown will meet or exceed all existing licensure requirements for construction and safety codes. It will contain 53,310 square feet of space on a single story, and is designed to optimize operational efficiency, minimize institutional effects, and emphasize a home-like atmosphere. All areas within the facility will meet federal guidelines for handicapped accessibility and use. Corridors will be 8 feet wide, and the doors to resident rooms will accommodate moveable beds. These features will eliminate the movement, monitoring and safety shortcomings inherent in Old Crown's two- story motel floor plan. There will be plenty of storage, a modern kitchen and laundry facility. Residents at New Crown will reside only in private and double occupancy semi-private rooms. Each room will feature private toilets, telephone, cable T.V., and individual thermostat controls. Homelike furnishings will be used throughout the facility. There will be two large day rooms adjacent to the nursing stations with access to three enclosed outdoor courtyards, a large restaurant-like dining area, a secured patio and an activity room. The day rooms will have aquariums, large screen televisions and VCRs. A large solarium/greenhouse will be located adjacent to the dining area. AHCA's approval of Beverly's application for New Crown is expressly contingent on the approval of expedited CON application 7505 to delicense Old Crown. This CON has been granted. Beverly will not allow operation of the two facilities to overlap. Old Crown will remain fully operational until New Crown is operational and placement is made for every Old Crown resident. Beverly will transfer Old Crown residents to New Crown, and will assist residents who choose not to move to New Crown in making whatever other arrangements the resident chooses. No resident will be "put out on the street." Compliance With The Local Health Plan The Health Council of West Central Florida, Inc. has identified three preferences, the first of which is a preference to new nursing homes which commit to serve Medicaid patients in proportion to the average number of Medicaid residents in existing nursing homes in the "health service area." That relevant average (subdistrict) is 55.32 percent. Beverly commits to 56 percent total Medicaid days for New Crown; Old Crown is at 59.24 percent; and other Beverly facilities have a high record of Medicaid services (nationally at 68.5 percent, and in Florida an average of 66 percent). CLC commits to 31.58 percent, which is a reasonable expectation since the Medicaid days will be generated primarily, if not exclusively, from patients drawn from the community at large and not from the independent living facility. CLC's Regency Oaks market is dominated by residents and potential residents from a narrow service area with higher financial resources than the southern end of Pinellas County. The second allocation factor gives a preference to applicants who propose specialized services, including adult day care, to meet identified needs. Beverly has conditioned its application on the provision of a wide range of specialized services. New Crown will provide distinct subacute care in a 20-bed Medicare certified subacute unit with four ventilator-dependent beds, and comprehensive rehabilitation in a 3,404 square foot physical therapy site with physical therapy gym, hydrotherapy area, "activities of daily living" room and outdoor ambulation court. It also will provide adult day care services in a 987-square foot Adult Day Care Center, Alzheimer's care in an 18-bed Alzheimer's wing that includes separate dining/activity areas and an enclosed courtyard, respite care services, care to individuals with mental disorders, care to individuals who are HIV+ or who have AIDS, and hospice care. Beverly also will make a $10,000 grant to Florida State University School of Nursing for research into gerontological issues in the nursing home environment and will make its facility available to nursing students for clinical rotations. CLC proposes intensive rehabilitation services, respite care, subacute care, hospice care and care to mental health patients. Its current facility has not provided respite care and it does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients. The third local health plan allocation factor gives preference to applicants who demonstrate an intent to serve HIV-infected patients. Both applicants commit to provide AIDS and HIV-positive health care. Beverly has documented its experience with these patients at its Old Crown and other facilities. CLC simply has stated that it does not discriminate in admissions of these patients; it also asserts that it has no idea which, if any, of its patients have been HIV-positive or AIDS patients since that information is not disclosed by the patient. Compliance With The State Health Plan The State Health Plan contains twelve allocation factors. Factor 1 gives preference to applicants locating in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. Pinellas County's occupancy rate of 90.23 percent qualifies both Beverly and CLC. Allocation Factor 2 gives preference to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents at the subdistrict Medicaid average. Exceptions are considered for applicants who propose the development of multi-level care systems. The applicants' Medicaid commitments are addressed above in paragraphs 23 and 24. The applicants' experts disagree on whether the Regency Oaks facility is truly "multi-level," as contemplated by the exception. The availability of different levels of care: independent living, assisted living and nursing home, on a single campus does represent a "multi-level" care system. State Health Plan Allocation Factor 3 gives preference to applicants proposing specialized services to special needs residents, including AIDS and Alzheimer's residents and the mentally ill. Both applicants, as discussed in paragraphs 26-28, above, have described in detail their proposals for specialized services. Beverly's experience in the past and specific plans for discrete subacute, ventilator-dependent and Alzheimer's units lend credibility to its commitment to those specialized services. CLC's commitment is more general. Its proposed staffing is too low to provide the level of care proposed for New Crown's subacute unit, but its staffing would be increased as needed by the patient population. Regency Oaks has 12 Medicare certified skilled nursing beds in the general nursing home population. None can accommodate a ventilator- dependent patient. Allocation 4 encourages a continuum of services, including adult day care and respite care. Both applicants propose to meet this requirement of the State Health Plan. Again, Beverly's commitment is evidenced by a specific description of discrete programs, while CLC's plans are more general. CLC contends that there is "insufficient demand" in the area to support adult day care; Beverly proposes a 987 square foot "Adult Day Care Center" with its own staff, staff office and storage, to accommodate up to 8 guests, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., five days a week. Day care guests will have an individual care plan prepared by professional staff and will have access to the full facility and its recreational, therapeutic and social services. Beverly will implement a respite program at New Crown and has such programs at its other facilities. CLC offers respite care but has never had a respite care patient. Allocation Factor 5 gives preference to applicants proposing facilities which provide maximum comfort and quality of care. Both applicants qualify for this preference with outstanding designs and programs. Both applicants propose therapeutic programs consistent with Allocation Factor 6. Specialized rehabilitation, restorative care and normalizing training are described in both applications and are committed to by the applicants. Both propose a more aggressive, intensive rehabilitation than other nursing homes in the area. The highest Medicaid per diem rate in Pinellas County is $100.74 (January, 1994). Inflated forward to 1996, the planning horizon, that rate becomes $113.00. New Crown's proposed rate of $100.14, and Regency Oaks' proposed rate of $102.75 (for 1995) do not exceed that highest rate (even when Regency Oaks' rate is inflated 5 percent for 1996). Both applicants are entitled to the preference in Allocation Factor 7. Both applicants qualify for the preference under Allocation Factor 8, as both enjoy the highest (superior) rating. Three of Beverly's four facilities, including Old Crown, currently hold superior licenses, and the fourth has been recommended for a superior license. Regency Oaks was eligible for a superior license shortly after issuance of its original license and actually received the superior license, after some logistical mix-up, in December of 1994. State Health Plan Allocation Factor 9 gives preference to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. As a well-run existing facility Regency Oaks maintains appropriate staffing levels. The staffing proposed in its application omits one certified nurse assistant (CNA) on the 11:00 to 7:00 shift. The director of nursing monitors the patient population to assure that staff is added when needed. Beverly's proposed staffing plainly meets or exceeds standards, including statutory and regulatory requirements at all levels. Both Beverly and CLC use professionals from a variety of disciplines and both are entitled to the preference described in State Health Plan Allocation Factor 10. Likewise, both applications describe, and the applicants' experience bears out, a respect for residents' rights and privacy and a well- designed quality assurance and discharge planning program, as required in Allocation Factor 11. State Health Plan Allocation Factor 12 gives preference to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs than the average nursing home costs in the district. As conceded by Beverly's expert health care planner, both applicants meet this preference criteria; however, Beverly's proposed administrative costs are lower, and patient costs are higher, than CLC's. Need and the Availability of Alternatives Nursing home occupancy rates in District V, subdistrict 2, Pinellas County, currently exceed 90 percent, and the need for 68 more nursing home beds in this district is undisputed. Evidence in this proceeding also established the need for such specialized services as subacute care (sometimes referred to as "step down" care), adult day care, HIV/AIDS care, Alzheimer's care and mental health care. Both applicants propose to meet a portion of the numerical need: Beverly with 66 new beds; and CLC with 60 beds converted from sheltered to community beds. Beverly's project more closely meets the numerical need; CLC concedes that some, and perhaps as many as 30, of its beds will be utilized by the residents of its independent living community. Both applicants propose outstanding programs for subacute care and other specialized services. As discussed above, Beverly's actual experience lends greater credibility to its commitment. Maintenance of the status quo in either case is not a viable alternative. Old Crown is only 54 beds; as of 1996, none of Regency Oaks' sheltered beds will be available for new community admissions. Without approval of one application or the other, the 68 bed need will remain wholly unmet. Availability of Resources, Including Staffing and Short-Term Funds Regency Oaks maintains a recruitment and staff development program designed to attract pools of qualified applicants for each personnel vacancy which occurs at the facility. This program has been effective in the recruitment and retention of high quality nurses and other professionals. Regency Oaks also maintains effective staff training and competency enhancement programs. The facility has a solid core staff in place. The parties have stipulated that Beverly will be able to hire the staff it needs at the proposed salaries and that Beverly's proposed recruitment plan career ladder, incentives and opportunities for advancement and efforts to recruit disciplines in short supply are reasonable and capable of being accomplished by the applicant. New Crown has the advantage of access to a statewide network of consultants who will draw from the expertise and resources of the Beverly companies. Since Regency Oaks is already built and in place, very little additional financial resources are needed in the short-term. The incremental project costs of $22,000 filing fee and $15,000 in consulting fees have already been expended. Whether it is a "zero cost" project or whether its cost should include the construction of the facility in 1991 for $2,634,441, as suggested by Beverly, CLC has the financial resources for short-term support of the project. Beverly likewise will be able to finance its total project cost of $6,361,751. Beverly's parent company has committed its substantial resources, including $80 million cash on hand, to finance the project. An issue arose in this proceeding regarding Beverly's failure to include on Schedule 2 of its application three nursing home facilities which it acquired on January 13, 1994. Two facilities, Old Crown and Beach Convalescent Center, were transferred to Beverly from its sister corporation, Petersen Health Care, Inc. The third facility, Clewiston Health Care Center, was transferred to Beverly from its "grandparent," Beverly California Corporation. Change of ownership applications addressing the transfers were filed with AHCA on October 15, 1993. CLC contends that these inter-company transfers involved expenditures that were "capital projects" within the meaning of section 408.037(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and therefore, Beverly should have included them on its Schedule 2. CLC introduced a closing statement and two deeds from the Beach and Old Crown change of ownership files in an attempt to suggest that Beverly had purchased the facilities in exchange for cash payments. Beverly established, however, that it gave no value of any kind in exchange for the transfers, which were accomplished simply by changing the corporate name on each facility's general ledger. Beverly prepared the documents in question only after the AHCA indicated that it would not approve the change of ownership applications until it received closing statements and deeds. No long-term debt was transferred, and each transferred facility had a positive asset value net of accumulated depreciation and amortization. Consequently, the transfers resulted in permanent additions to Beverly's equity (i.e. plant, property and equipment) valued at $3,882,033. Future Beverly audited financial statements will reflect the transfers as additions to paid-in capital. The operational assets of each facility far exceeded the operational liabilities (e.g. accounts payable) of each facility, and Beverly received net working capital in the total amount of $600,116. For reimbursement purposes, the transfers were treated as "related party transfers" and did not result in any change in Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement rates. Beverly California Corporation paid all the incidental expenses associated with the transfers such as application and legal fees. Beverly would not capitalize these expenses. Contrary to CLC's contention, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) statements 11 and 14 do not require that these transfers be treated as "capital expenditures." FASB Statement 11 deals with accounting for contingencies, and does not offer any insight into the proper characterization of the intercompany transfers at issue here. FASB Statement 14 requires that financial statements of a business enterprise include information about its "segments," i.e., operations representing at least 10 percent of the company's total revenues. There is no evidence that Beverly is a "segment," nor does FASB 14 define "expenditure" or "capital expenditure." FASB Statement 14 mentions capital expenditures only once. Paragraph 27 is titled "Other Related Disclosures." Paragraph 27(b) requires that "information for reportable segments shall be made as follows: . . . Disclosure shall be made of the amount of each reportable segment's capital expenditures, i.e., additions to its property, plant and equipment." (Transcript, pp. 623) This passing reference does not define capital expenditures for all purposes, or require that all additions to plant property and equipment be characterized as capital expenditures. Paragraph 27(b) of FASB Statement 14 merely advises accountants that the financial statement of a company must disclose the capital expenditures --- as opposed to expense items --- that a reportable segment of the company has made. Read in context, the reference to additions to plant, property and equipment is meant only as an example of transactions that, under circumstances not defined in FASB 14, might involve a capital expenditure. In the universe of additions to plant property and equipment, some may involve capital expenditures. However, the transfers here at issue demonstrate that a company can obtain additions to plant, property and equipment without incurring any expenditure at all. FASB Statement 6, at paragraph 66, provides that an increase in the equity of a business entity resulting from the transfer to it of something of value to obtain or increase an equity interest in the entity is considered an investment by owners, not an expenditure by the receiving entity. Health Care Financial Management Association Principles and Practices Board Statement No. 12 similarly would characterize the transfers at issue as equity investments by affiliated companies, not expenditures. This is the proper characterization of the transactions between Beverly and its affiliated companies. The equity contributions of its affiliated companies made Beverly a financially stronger and wealthier entity that was more capable of undertaking the proposed project, and did not involve an expenditure of any kind on the part of Beverly, and therefore cannot be characterized as "capital projects" according to credible, competent expert opinion. AHCA's sample Schedule 2 form does not provide a place to list the receipt of equity, but rather asks only for "expenditures." Had Beverly incorrectly included the transfers as "expenditures" in its Schedule 2, it would have had to show them as negative expenditures, thereby reducing the total amount of reported capital projects and improving Beverly's reported financial position. Upon inquiry, AHCA properly advised Beverly that since the transfers did not involve any expenditures by the applicant, it should not disclose them. Accessibility To All Residents of the Service District Regency Oaks has never turned away a Medicaid or other patient based on payor status and affirmatively accepts patients regardless of ability to pay. Regency Oaks also accepts AIDS/HIV patients, Alzheimer's and other specialty needs patients. Beverly also has this type of "open door" policy. Its experience, however, as discussed above, has been more successful in attracting and serving Medicaid patients and patients with special needs. As an integral part of a beautifully designed, upscale retirement community, Regency Oaks has not drawn the payor mix that Old Crown and its sister facilities have served. As the residents of the independent living units age in place and increase in number with completion of the additional units, accessibility to all residents of the service district is diminished, not enhanced, if the conversion from sheltered to community beds is approved for Regency Oaks. Long Term Financial Feasibility Review of financial feasibility of Regency Oaks is simplified by the fact that it has actual operating experience to support its projections. Opened in Fall 1991, the nursing home, as typically expected, showed losses for the first few years. It turned a profit in 1993. Regency Oaks has the necessary resources to continue to operate the continuing care apartments as well as the nursing home with net operating income, including net operating income from the completion and opening of the new 200 independent living units and further supplemented by the resources of the shareholders of CLC. The four CLC shareholders are personal guarantors on the mortgage indebtedness of all the property at Regency Oaks. Their net worth is in excess of $60 million and cash reserve is greater than $10 million. If the CON is approved and Regency Oaks is permitted to accept community bed patients it will be financially healthy. If, however, the facility is restricted in 1996 and the beds will be filled only from its continuing care units, the nursing home will become financially stressed. Neil Ezell, the corporate representative of CLC and chief financial officer for the Johnson Ezell Corporation, acknowledges the difficulty in making a profit in a smaller 60-bed nursing home because of the high fixed administrative costs. If the high-end estimate that 30 beds will be filled from the continuing care facility is accurate, Regency Oaks will be operating at 50 percent capacity in 1996 or shortly thereafter. The contractual obligations to Regency Oaks residents would still be honored in some fashion, but with substantial difficulty. Absent CON approval, Regency Oaks' cost per patient day will increase and will negatively impact Medicare since Medicare is a cost-based reimbursement system for skilled nursing facilities. Beverly's proposal for a new 120-bed facility at New Crown is financially more efficient than either Regency Oaks or the existing 54-bed Old Crown facility, even considering the $6,361,751.00 total project cost. The old facility is too dated and too small to be efficiently operated much longer. The 120-bed proposal meets the need for new beds and effectively puts to rest the old well-used beds. The patients at New Crown will come from the community at large and will also be transferred from the existing Crown facility. The projected utilization is reasonable and the projected pre-tax net income of approximately $299,000.00 at the end of the second year is likewise realistic. The proposal is financially feasible. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND BALANCING THE CRITERIA Both applicants presented outstanding proposals. There is no question that they have provided, and will continue to provide, superior quality of care in attractive, well-equipped and well-staffed facilities. Beverly's proposal enjoys the financial "economies of scale" advantage of a larger facility; CLC's proposal is financially appealing because it requires little or no additional start-up expenditures. Beverly effectively countered CLC's assertions that the application was defective for failure to include the three recently-acquired facilities as "capital expenditures". Beverly also appropriately addressed CLC's claim that it failed to consider the transfer of Old Crown residents in its projected utilization of beds at the new 120-bed facility. Approval of Beverly's application for 120 beds will not result in approval of an excess of beds left in the fixed need pool. Approval is conditioned on approval of delicensure. The old and new facilities will not be concurrently licensed. It strains common sense to find that the concurrent approval and delicensure process should somehow result in creating a need in some future planning horizon, rather than the immediate planning horizon. Both applicants avow their commitment to serve Medicaid and specialty needs population and to remain accessible to persons regardless of ability to pay. Beverly's commitment is underscored with an existing record of service and with its willingness to accept conditions of approval. More troubling than the Medicaid and special needs accessibility issue, however, is the concern that CLC's existing 60-bed facility at Regency Oaks will, upon conversion, fall substantially short of meeting the need for 68 beds. Its continuing care community is expanding and the demand for nursing home beds by that population will increase. Somewhere between 10 and 30 beds will be filled, leaving only 30 to 50 beds available to the population at large. CLC's financial dilemma is the result of a considered decision to build 60 sheltered nursing home beds to support a 200 unit continuing care facility. The only explanation in the record for exceeding the 1:4 ratio is that initially the plan was for 240 units. Even with 50, rather than 60 sheltered beds, the facility would have problems, since the prevailing wisdom based on actual utilization experience is that far fewer sheltered beds are needed. Although the anticipated financial dilemma will have some impact on Medicare reimbursement in the Regency Oaks' facility, there is no major health care planning impact from denial of the conversion. The impact is facility- specific and was at least partially foreseeable five years ago. That is, the statute, then as now, provided a fixed 5-year period for the use of sheltered care beds by the community at large. Balancing of the criteria and weighing the evidence results in a finding that Beverly's, rather than CLC's, application should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order denying Clearwater Land Company's application for CON #7503P and approving Beverly Savana Cay, Inc.'s application for CON #7508, conditioned upon 56 percent of patient days of care to Medicaid residents, and appropriate specific conditions for a ventilator-dependent unit, respite care, adult day care, Alzheimer's unit, and AIDS/HIV+ care. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 June, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Clearwater Land Company's Proposed Findings 1. and 2. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. and 5. Adopted in paragraph 4. 6. and 7. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 9. and 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 72. Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. - 19. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. and 24. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 64. and 27. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Covered in Preliminary Statement. Covered in Conclusions of Law, paragraph 79. and 31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. and 35. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 17 and 22. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 23 and 24. Adopted in substance in paragraph 27. Adopted in substance in paragraph 28. and 40. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 31. Adopted in substance in paragraph 32. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in substance in paragraph 37. and 50. Adopted in paragraph 38. Adopted in paragraph 39. - 55. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 56. and 57. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 47 and 64. 58. and 59. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected, as to the comparative conclusion; otherwise accepted generally. - 64. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 62. - 71. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 64. Adopted in substance in paragraph 64, except as to the impact if Beverly is approved. That finding is rejected as unsupported by the evidence. and 75. Adopted generally in paragraphs 64 and 65. Accepted, as to no impact on existing providers; rejected, as to impact by Beverly. Adopted in paragraph 67 (as to Beverly's cost). - 82. Rejected generally as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 10. - 86. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. - 94. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. Findings regarding the high quality of care and range of services are addressed above. 95. and 96. Adopted in part in paragraph 37; the one staffing omission was conceded by CLC's director of nursing. 97. - 99. Adopted in substance in paragraph 45. 100. - 117. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. 118. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Beverly's Proposed Findings Addressed in Preliminary Statement. and 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 18. and 7. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 26. Adopted in paragraph 22. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 9 and 12. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. and 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 70. Adopted in paragraph 50. Adopted in paragraph 51. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in substance in paragraph 53, although the testimony was related to both Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. and 24. Adopted in paragraph 54. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 56. Adopted in paragraph 57. and 29. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted generally in paragraph 24. Adopted generally in paragraph 26. Adopted generally in paragraph 27. Adopted generally in paragraph 28. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted generally in paragraph 30, although "multi-level" was not defined, and CLC's assertion that it is a "multi-level" facility is generally accepted. Adopted in paragraph 31. - 64. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as to the characterization of CLC's rate; otherwise adopted in substance in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 36. and 68. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 69. and 70. Adopted in paragraph 38, except as to the conclusion that CLC does not meet the preference. 71. and 72. Adopted in part; rejected in part in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraphs 40 and 75. - 100. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 101. Adopted generally in paragraphs 72 and 73. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Griffin, Esq. Charles A. Stampelos, Esq. MCFARLAIN, WILEY, CASSEDY & JONES, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Ste. 600 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esq. Michael Manthei, Esq. BROAD & CASSEL 215 S. Monroe Street, Ste. 400 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Samuel D. Bunton, Esq. Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium Building, Ste. 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32309 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Bldg. 3, Ste. 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403
Findings Of Fact Forum is a national corporation which owns and operates 16 retirement projects in the United States. These projects generally consist of a complex, including apartments for retirement couples, an adult congregate living facility, a nursing home and accessory facilities to provide meals, laundry and other housekeeping requirements. The same type project is proposed in this application to be built in Lee County, Florida, with the 60 bed nursing home the essential ingredient of the complex requiring prior approval before construction. Such projects offer many advantages for elderly people. The proposed nursing facility would be open to the public as well as to members of retirement living. Pursuant to the bed need formula found in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, the "fixed need pool" when calculated identifies a need for no new beds in the Lee County subdistrict of (District VIII) in the July 1990 planning horizon. Lee County is an appropriate subdistrict in District VIII and is so identified in the District VIII Health Plan. There were 1056 licensed community nursing home beds in Lee County on August 1, 1987, the cutoff date used for determining bed need for the applications submitted in the batching cycle for development and operation in the July 1990 planning horizon. There were also 342 approved, but not licensed beds, in Lee County on August 1, 1987. Including these bed with the licensed beds and calculating bed need in Lee County for the July 1990 horizon shows no need for additional beds. To justify need for additional beds, Forum used a different number as approved beds than was used by DHRS in determining no additional beds are needed in the July 1990 planning horizon. Specifically, Forum challenged CON 4748 issued to Careage for 120 beds contending that zero beds should have been used because no CON for 120 beds was ever issued, and the CON for 60 beds was not published until September 4, 1987, after the August 1, 1987, cutoff date for this batch. The January 23, 1987, issue of Florida Administrative Weekly published the issuance of CON 4748 to Careage Southwest Healthcare Center for a new 120 bed skilled and intermediate care facility in Lee County. Due to changes in personnel at DHRS at this time, this CON was not processed promptly, and Forum Group, among others, filed a petition for hearing to challenge the CON (Exhibit No. 18). Prior to the issuance of CON 4748 to Careage, DHRS discovered that on initial processing of CON 4748, only 60 of the 120 beds requested had been approved, and 60 beds had been denied. This error was not corrected until the publication of Florida Administration Weekly on September 4, 1987, where CON 4748 was corrected to show 60 beds issued to Careage. However, prior to August 1, 1987, Careage was notified that DHRS intended to award it 60 nursing home, beds. A good argument can be made for Forum's position that the notice that 120 beds had been awarded to Careage was a clear error which would ultimately be corrected. If that premise is accepted, it must also be accepted that 60 beds were approved for Careage. Reducing the number of approved beds as of August 1, 1987, by 60 and using the calculations for determining the District Projected Bed Need (A) Table III, Exhibit No. 9, to calculate the SA (Subdistrict Allocation) shows the following: SA = A x LBD (Subdistrict Beds) x (OR (Subdistrict Occupancy Rate) LB (District Licensed Beds) .9 or SA = 5650.9 x 1056 x .9347 = 1286.57 4817 .9 Beds Available = LBD + (.9 x Subdistrict Approved Beds (282) = 1056 + 238 = 1308.8 Subtracting this from SA shows approximately 23 beds needed. Under the fixed pool rule, DHRS will not, for any reason, alter the published fixed pool inventory unless an error is brought to its attention during a grace period that will allow DHRS to notify interested parties through publication. Any errors not corrected in the grace period will be corrected in the next fixed pool batching cycle. The grace period is triggered by a letter of intent which extends the filing deadlines for competitive letters of Intent. Correcting fixed pool errors during the grace period allows other applicants to compete for the same pool of beds. Correcting errors after this grace period would not give prospective applicants adequate notice of the need, and they would be unable to timely compete in the batch. Because no errors were brought to the attention of DHRS that could have been corrected within the grace period, DHRS could not make any changes to its published fixed pool need for Lee County. Forum also reduced 30 beds from those approved for construction by Beverly Enterprises in Lee County in CONS 1991 and 1992. CONS 1991 and 1992 were issued December 5, 1986, to Beverly Enterprises and authorized the construction of a 90 bed nursing facility and a 60 bed nursing facility in Lee County. Both of the CONS were in effect on August 1, 1987, the cutoff date for counting approved beds for use in the bed need rule formula. Subsequent to August 1, 1987, Beverly completed construction on a 120 bed nursing facility, and a CON was issued for 120 beds, CON 1992 (for 60 beds) was rescinded and 30 beds were reallocated. On August 1, 1987, all 150 of these beds were approved beds. DHRS defines approved beds to include those applications that have received CON approval either by issuance of a CON, letter of intent to issue a CON, and where a written settlement agreement has been entered to grant a CON to a certain applicant or applicants. DHRS also considers publication of intent to grant or granting a CON as tantamount to issuing a CON or letter of intent to issue. But for the issue of need, Forum met all statutory requirements for the issuance of the requested CON. Absent a need for the requested beds, granting the 60 beds requested by Forum would adversely affect existing providers and would not be economically feasible. No evidence was submitted that special circumstances exist in Lee County which would justify the granting of a CON to Forum despite the lack of need under the appropriate bed need rule.
