The Issue Whether, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) lawfully assigned conditional licensure status to Harbour Health Center for the period June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004; whether, based upon clear and convincing evidence, Harbour Health Center violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Section 483.25, as alleged by AHCA; and, if so, the amount of any fine based upon the determination of the scope and severity of the violation, as required by Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based upon stipulations, deposition, oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, and the entire record of the proceeding, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, AHCA was the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and the assignment of a licensure status pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2004). AHCA is charged with the responsibility of evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, AHCA is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, which states that "[n]ursing homes that participate in Title XVIII or XIX must follow certification rules and regulations found in 42 C.F.R. §483, Requirements for Long Term Care Facilities, September 26, 1991, which is incorporated by reference." The facility is a licensed nursing facility located in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, Florida. Pursuant to Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under Subsection 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2004), are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is, also, determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and which is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation, and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. To assist in identifying and interpreting deficient practices, surveyors use Guides for Information Analysis Deficiency Determination/Categorization Maps and Matrices. On, or about, June 14 through 17, 2004, AHCA conducted an annual recertification survey of the facility. As to federal compliance requirements, AHCA alleged, as a result of this survey, that the facility was not in compliance with 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25 (Tag F309) for failing to provide necessary care and services for three of 21 sampled residents to attain or maintain their respective highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. As to the state requirements of Subsections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2004), and by operation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, AHCA determined that the facility had failed to comply with state requirements and, under the Florida classification system, classified the Federal Tag F309 non-compliance as a state Class II deficiency. Should the facility be found to have committed any of the alleged deficient practices, the period of the conditional licensure status would extend from June 17, 2004, to June 29, 2004. Resident 8 Resident 8's attending physician ordered a protective device to protect the uninjured left ankle and lower leg from injury caused by abrasive contact with the casted right ankle and leg. Resident 8 repeatedly kicked off the protective device, leaving her uninjured ankle and leg exposed. A 2.5 cm abrasion was noted on the unprotected ankle. The surveyors noted finding the protective device in Resident 8's bed but removed from her ankle and leg. Resident 8 was an active patient and had unsupervised visits with her husband who resided in the same facility but who did not suffer from dementia. No direct evidence was received on the cause of the abrasion noted on Resident 8's ankle. Given Resident 8's demonstrated propensity to kick off the protective device, the facility should have utilized a method of affixing the protective device, which would have defeated Resident 8's inclination to remove it. The facility's failure to ensure that Resident 8 could not remove a protective device hardly rises to the level of a failure to maintain a standard of care which compromises the resident's ability to maintain or reach her highest practicable physical, mental or psychosocial well-being. The failure to ensure that the protective device could not be removed would result in no more than minimal discomfort. Resident 10 Resident 10 has terminal diagnoses which include end- stage coronary artery disease and progressive dementia and receives hospice services from a local Hospice and its staff. In the Hospice nurse's notes for Resident 10, on her weekly visit, on May 17, 2004, was the observation that the right eye has drainage consistent with a cold. On May 26, 2004, the same Hospice nurse saw Resident 10 and noted that the cold was gone. No eye drainage was noted. No eye drainage was noted between that date and June 2, 2004. On June 3, 2004, eye drainage was noted and, on June 4, 2004, a culture of the drainage was ordered. On June 7, 2004, the lab report was received and showed that Resident 10 had a bacterial eye infection with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bacteria. On June 8, 2004, the attending physician, Dr. Brinson, referred the matter to a physician specializing in infectious disease, and Resident 10 was placed in contact isolation. The infectious disease specialist to whom Resident 10 was initially referred was not available, and, as a result, no treatment was undertaken until a second specialist prescribed Bactrim on June 14, 2004. From June 8, 2004, until June 14, 2004, Resident 10 did not demonstrate any outward manifestations of the diagnosed eye infection. A June 9, 2004, quarterly pain assessment failed to note any discomfort, eye drainage or discoloration. In addition to noting that neither infectious control specialist had seen Resident 10, the nurses notes for this period note an absence of symptoms of eye infection. Colonized MRSA is not uncommon in nursing homes. A significant percentage of nursing home employees test positive for MRSA. The lab results for Resident 10 noted "NO WBC'S SEEN," indicating that the infection was colonized or inactive. By placing Resident 10 in contact isolation on June 8, 2004, risk of the spread of the infection was reduced, in fact, no other reports of eye infection were noted during the relevant period. According to Dr. Brinson, Resident 10's attending physician, not treating Resident 10 for MRSA would have been appropriate. The infectious disease specialist, however, treated her with a bacterial static antibiotic. That is, an antibiotic which inhibits further growth, not a bactericide, which actively destroys bacteria. Had this been an active infectious process, a more aggressive treatment regimen would have been appropriate. Ann Sarantos, who testified as an expert witness in nursing, opined that there was a lack of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice and that the delay in treatment of Resident 10's MRSA presented an unacceptable risk to Resident 10 and the entire resident population. Hospice's Lynn Ann Lima, a registered nurse, testified with specificity as to the level of communication and treatment coordination between the facility and Hospice. She indicated a high level of communication and treatment coordination. Dr. Brinson, who, in addition to being Resident 10's attending physician, was the facility's medical director, opined that Resident 10 was treated appropriately. He pointed out that Resident 10 was a terminally-ill patient, not in acute pain or distress, and that no harm was done to her. The testimony of Hospice Nurse Lima and Dr. Brinson is more credible. Resident 16 Resident 16 was readmitted from the hospital to the facility on May 24, 2004, with a terminal diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was receiving Hospice care. Roxanol, a morphine pain medication, had been prescribed for Resident 16 for pain on a pro re nata (p.r.n.), or as necessary, basis, based on the judgment of the registered nurse or attending physician. Roxanol was given to Resident 16 in May and on June 1 and 2, 2004. The observations of the surveyor took place on June 17, 2004. On June 17, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 16 underwent wound care treatment which required the removal of her sweater, transfer from sitting upright in a chair to the bed, and being placed on the left side for treatment. During the transfer and sweater removal, Resident 16 made noises which were variously described as "oohs and aahs" or "ows," depending on the particular witness. The noises were described as typical noises for Resident 16 or evidences of pain, depending on the observer. Nursing staff familiar with Resident 16 described that she would demonstrate pain by fidgeting with a blanket or stuffed animal, or that a tear would come to her eye, and that she would not necessarily have cried out. According to facility employees, Resident 16 did not demonstrate any of her typical behaviors indicating pain on this occasion, and she had never required pain medication for the wound cleansing procedure before. An order for pain medication available "p.r.n.," requires a formalized pain assessment by a registered nurse prior to administration. While pain assessments had been done on previous occasions, no formal pain assessment was done during the wound cleansing procedure. A pain assessment was to be performed in the late afternoon of the same day; however, Resident 16 was sleeping comfortably. The testimony on whether or not inquiry was made during the wound cleansing treatment as to whether Resident 16 was "in pain," "okay," or "comfortable," differs. Resident 16 did not receive any pain medication of any sort during the period of time she was observed by the surveyor. AHCA determined that Resident 16 had not received the requisite pain management, and, as a result, Resident 16’s pain went untreated, resulting in harm characterized as a State Class II deficiency. AHCA's determination is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In the context that the surveyor considered what she interpreted as Resident 16's apparent pain, deference should have been given to the caregivers who regularly administered to Resident 16 and were familiar with her observable indications of pain. Their interpretation of Resident 16's conduct and their explanation for not undertaking a formal pain assessment are logical and are credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding: The facility's failure to secure the protective device to Resident 8's lower leg is not a Class II deficiency, but a Class III deficiency. The facility's care and treatment of Residents 10 and 16 did not fall below the requisite standard. The imposition of a conditional license for the period of June 17 to June 29, 2004, is unwarranted. The facility should have its standard licensure status restored for this period. No administrative fine should be levied. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Eric Bredemeyer, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact During the months of June and July, 1987, Respondent Convalescent Services of Venice, Inc., operated Pinebrook Place Health Care Center in Venice, Florida. On or about June 19, 1987, Rev. Spittal, then the licensed Administrator of the facility, submitted his emergency resignation in order to assume administration of another facility to which he was obligated to give guidance. He immediately notified the Regional Director of the Respondent corporation, Mr. Rick Winkler, who was himself a licensed health care administrator in Florida. As Regional Director, with the responsibility for supervising five nursing homes and one retirement center, Mr. Winkler had his office in the Pinebrook Place facility. Mr. Winkler's license was physically located at Respondent corporation's other facility, Lakeside Nursing Home in Naples, Florida. Mr. Winkler had been the Administrator of that facility prior to becoming Regional Director, and because the incumbent administrator, Ms. Harnish, was newly licensed, and because an administrator in training, Ms. Cox, was undergoing training at that facility, he left his license at the Lakeside facility when he moved to Pinebrook to become Regional Director. Upon the departure of Rev. Spittal, Mr. Winkler immediately assumed administration of the Pinebrook facility, fulfilling all the functions of the administrator and advising the staff that he had done so. In addition, he immediately entered into a contract with Ms. Joyce A. Coleman, a licensed nursing home administrator, to assume the position of Administrator of Pinebrook Place effective July 13, 1987. Thereafter, between Rev. Spittal's departure on June 19 and Ms. Coleman's arrival on July 13, 1987, Mr. Winkler was the Administrator of Pinebrook Place Health Care Center. A licensed assistant administrator was not employed at Pinebrook during that period. On June 30, 1987, Mr. Dowless, an investigator for HRS Office of Licensure and Certification, pursuant to a report filed by a discharged former employee at Pinebrook, visited the facility to determine if the allegation made that Pinebrook was operating without a licensed administrator was true. That day in question, Mr. Winkler was absent from the facility attending the opening of the Respondent corporation's newest facility. When Mr. Dowless arrived he spoke with the acting Administrator In Charge, the chief nurse to whom Mr. Winkler supposedly gave a letter of authority in writing to assume supervision in his absence, and after an inspection of the facility, concluded that the Respondent corporation was in violation of the law. This was because Mr. Winkler, though a licensed nursing home administrator, had his license physically located at Lakeside and he failed to have an Assistant Administrator under his supervision at the Pinebrook facility. This information was telephonically reported to Mr. Winkler who called Mr. Dowless by telephone later that day. The discussion was somewhat heated. Because he was unable to convince Mr. Dowless of the fact that he was the administrator at that facility, Mr. Winkler placed a telephone call to Mr. Richard Reysen, a Deputy Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification. During this conversation, Mr. Winkler explained his licensure situation and was led to believe that the situation was acceptable so long as he would have his license physically removed from Lakeside to Pinebrook. He did this and took no further action. Considering the matter closed, he was somewhat surprised when a citation was subsequently issued by Petitioner levying a fine of $1300. The fine was $100 per day for each day of the alleged violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of laws it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this case against the Respondent, Convalescent Services of Venice, Inc. d/b/a Pinebrook Place Health Care Center be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 16th day of June, 1988. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 16th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By the Petitioner 1 - 2. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Respondent is not cited for this alleged violation. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Irrelevant. 12 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. By the Respondent Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and Incorporated herein. 4 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a synopsis of testimony, not a finding of fact. Irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: ANTHONY DELUCCIA, ESQUIRE DISTRICT VIII LEGAL COUNSEL P. O. BOX 06085, SUITE 110 FT. MYERS, FLORIDA 33906 R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN, JR., ESQUIRE P. O. BOX 10651 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302 GREGORY L. COLER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0700 R. S. POWER, AGENCY CLERK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Wellington Specialty Care and Rehab Center sufficient to support the change in its licensure status to a conditional rating.
Findings Of Fact Wellington is a nursing home located in Tampa, Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by the Agency pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. The Agency is the licensing agency in the State of Florida responsible for regulating nursing facilities under Part II of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On September 10, 1998, the Agency conducted a complaint investigation at Wellington in a matter unrelated to the issues that are the subject of this proceeding. On that same date, the Agency also conducted an appraisal survey that focused on six areas of care for which Wellington had been cited as deficient in past surveys. After the investigation and survey were completed, the Agency determined that there was no basis for the complaint, and further determined that Wellington was not deficient in any of the six areas of care which were the subject of the appraisal survey. Notwithstanding its findings that the complaint against Wellington was unfounded and that there were no deficiencies in the targeted areas of care being reviewed, the Agency determined that Wellington was deficient in an area not initially the subject of the September 1998 survey. Specifically, the Agency found that Wellington had failed to provide adequate supervision and assistance devices to two residents at the facility in violation of the regulatory standard contained in 42 C.F.R. s. 483.25(h)(2). Based on its findings and conclusions, the Agency issued a survey report in which this deficiency was identified and described under a "Tag F324." The basis for the Agency’s findings were related to observations and investigations of two residents at the facility, Resident 6 and Resident 8. During the September 1998 survey and complaint investigation, the surveyors observed that Resident 6 had a bruise on her forehead and that Resident 8 had bruises on the backs of both of her hands. Resident 6 suffered a stroke in May 1998 and had left-side neglect, a condition that caused her to be unaware of her left side and placed her at risk for falls. Moreover, Resident 6's ability to recall events was impaired. The Agency's investigation revealed that Resident 6 sustained the bruise on her forehead when she fell from the toilet on August 31, 1998. The Agency determined that Resident 6 fell because she was left alone by the staff of the facility and further concluded that Wellington was responsible for causing this fall. The Agency believed that given Resident 6's left-side neglect, the facility staff should have known not to leave the resident unattended during her trips to the toilet. The Agency suggested that Wellington should have provided constant supervision to Resident 6, although it acknowledged that such supervision may have created privacy violations. In making its determination and reaching its conclusions, the Agency relied exclusively on an interview with Resident 6, notwithstanding the fact that her ability to recall events was impaired. Since Resident 6 was admitted to the facility in May 1998, Wellington appropriately and adequately addressed her susceptibility to falls, including falls from her toilet. After Resident 6 was initially admitted to the facility in May 1998, she received occupational therapy to improve her balance. In late June 1998, following several weeks of occupational therapy, Wellington’s occupational therapist evaluated Resident 6’s ability to sit and to control the balance in the trunk of her body and determined that the resident was capable of sitting upright without support for up to 40 minutes. Based upon that assessment, Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy on June 25, 1998, and her caregivers were provided with instructions on how to maintain her balance. At the time Resident 6 was discharged from occupational therapy, a care plan was devised for her which provided that the facility staff would give her assistance in all of her activities of daily living, but would only provide stand-by assistance to Resident 6 while she was on the toilet, if such assistance was requested. In light of the occupational therapist's June 1998 assessment of Resident 6, this care plan was adequate to address her risk for falls, including her risk for falls while on the toilet. Wellington also provided Resident 6 with appropriate assistance devices. In Resident 6's bathroom, Wellington provided her with a right-side handrail and an armrest by her toilet to use for support and balance, and also gave her a call light to alert staff if she felt unsteady. These measures were effective as demonstrated by the absence of any falls from the toilet by Resident 6 over the course of June, July, and August 1998. The Agency's surveyor who reviewed Resident 6’s medical records was not aware of and did not consider the June 1998 Occupational Therapy Assessment of Resident 6 before citing the facility for the deficiency. Resident 8 was admitted to Wellington in February 1998 with a history of bruising and existing bruises on her body. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Resident 8 was taking Ticlid, a medication which could cause bruising and also had osteopenia, a degenerative bone condition that could increase Resident 8's risk for bruising, making it possible for her to bruise herself with only a slight bump. After observing the bruising on the backs of both of Resident 8's hands during the September 1998 survey, the Agency asked facility staff about the bruising and also reviewed the resident’s medical records. Based on her interviews and record review, the Agency surveyor found that these bruises had not been ignored by Wellington. Rather, the Agency found that when facility staff initially observed these bruises on Resident 8's hands, (1) staff had immediately notified Resident 8's physician of the bruises; and (2) the physician then ordered an X-ray of Resident 8 to determine whether there was a fracture. The X-ray determined that there was not a fracture but that there was evidence of a bone loss or osteopenia, which indicated that Resident 8 had an underlying structural problem which could increase the resident's risk for bruising. The Agency surveyor found nothing in Resident 8's medical record to indicate that the facility had investigated the bruising on the resident’s hands, identified the cause of the bruising, or identified any means to prevent the bruising from reoccurring. Based on the absence of this information in Resident 8's records, the Agency cited the facility for a deficiency under "Tag F324." The Agency's surveyor made no determination and reached no conclusion as to the cause of the bruising. However, she considered that the bruising on Resident 8 may have been caused by the underlying structural damage, medication, or external forces. With regard to external forces, the surveyor speculated that the bruising may have occurred when Resident 8 bumped her hands against objects such as her chair or bed siderails. During the September 1998 survey, when the Agency surveyor expressed her concerns about the cause of the bruising on Resident 8's hands, Wellington’s Director of Nursing suggested to the surveyor that the bruising could have been the result of the use of improper transfer techniques by either Resident 8’s family or the facility staff, or Resident 8’s medications. Despite the surveyor's speculation and suggestions by the facility's Director of Nursing, the Agency surveyor saw nothing that would indicate how the bruising occurred. In fact, the Agency surveyor's observation of a staff member transferring Resident 8 indicated that the staff member was using a proper transfer technique that would not cause bruising to the resident’s hands. The Agency surveyor made no other observations and conducted no investigation of the potential causes of the bruising on Resident 8's hands. During the September 1998 survey, after the Agency surveyor inquired as to the cause of the bruises on Resident 8's hands, the facility conducted an investigation to try to identify the potential causes for the bruising. The investigation was conducted by the facility’s Care Plan Coordinator, a licensed practical nurse who was also the Unit Manager for the unit on which Resident 8 was located. Included in the Care Plan Coordinator's investigation was a thorough examination of the potential causes suggested by the Agency's surveyor. The Agency surveyor’s speculation that the bruising was caused when Resident 8 hit her hands against her chair or bed siderails was ruled out as a cause for the bruises because Resident 8 was unable to move around in her bed or chair. More importantly, there were no bedrails on Resident 8's bed and her chair was a heavily padded recliner. Also, as a part of her investigation, the Care Plan Coordinator observed the transfer techniques employed by both Resident 8's family members and facility staff. During these observations, she did not see any indication that the techniques used were improper or would otherwise cause Resident 8 to bruise her hands. Based upon her thorough investigation, the Case Plan Coordinator determined that there were no identifiable causes of the bruising and, thus, there were no care plan interventions that the facility could have implemented then or in September 1998 to prevent the bruising suffered by Resident 8. Instead, the Care Plan Coordinator reasonably concluded that the bruising was most likely an unavoidable result of Resident 8's medications and her osteopenia. The Agency is required to rate the severity of any deficiency identified during a survey with two types of ratings. One of these is "scope and severity" rating which is defined by federal law, and the other rating is a state classification rating which is defined by state law and rules promulgated thereunder. As a result of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Tag F324 deficiency a scope and severity rating of "G" which, under federal regulations, is a determination that the deficient practice was isolated. The Tag F324 deficiency was also given a state classification rating of "II" which, under the Agency’s rule, is a determination that the deficiency presented "an immediate threat to the health, safety or security of the residents." Because the Agency determined that there was a Class II deficiency at Wellington after the September 1998 survey, it changed Wellington’s Standard licensure rating to Conditional, effective September 10, 1998. At the completion of the September 1998 survey, the Agency assigned the Class II rating to the deficiency although the surveyors failed to determine and did not believe that there was an immediate threat of accidents to other residents at Wellington. In fact, at the time of the September 1998 survey, the number of falls at Wellington had declined since the last survey. The Agency returned to Wellington on November 6, 1998, to determine if the facility had corrected the Tag F324 deficiency cited in the September 1998 survey report. After completing that survey, the Agency determined that the deficiency had been corrected and issued Wellington a Standard License effective November 6, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order issuing a Standard rating to Wellington and rescinding the Conditional rating. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Esquire Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas Caufman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 6800 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether DHRS should approve the application for certificate of need of any one or more of the January, 1987, applicants for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County. STIPULATIONS The parties stipulated to the following facts: All applicants timely filed their respective letters of intent, applications and omission responses with DHRS and the appropriate local health council for the January, 1987, batching cycle. The petitioners each timely filed a petition requesting a Section 120.57(1) hearing and have standing in this proceeding. The parties agree the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter and the parties. The CON application content requirements of Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1985), apply as that was the statute in effect at the time the applications were filed. The review criteria in Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), apply to this proceeding. The following statutory criteria have been met orare not applicable in this proceeding: Section 381.705(1)(d), (f), (g), (j) and (k) and all of Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Except for the effects the project will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs, the extent to which services will be accessible to schools for health professionals and the availability of alternative uses of such resources for the provision of other health services, Section 381.705(1)(h) is in dispute and remains to be litigated.
Findings Of Fact SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES. HCR's application (CON Action No. 5000) is to construct a 120-bed nursing home consisting of 40,000 square feet at a cost of $3,964,000.00, or $33,033 per bed (including adult day care; $32,1127 when the cost for day care is excluded.) The HCR application describes special programs and services for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder patients in a distinct special care unit and an Alzheimer's day care center, both Identified in the plans submitted by HCR showing special design elements. HCR also proposes to offer sub-acute care and respite care. The HCR nursing home will have 2.08 (120/57.6) patients per staff, which includes the assistant director of nursing and occupational therapy and recreational therapy aides listed by HCR in its application. FCP submitted an application for 30 nursing home beds to be constructed as a part of a retirement facility (CON Action NO. 4993). The 30 beds will comprise approximately 17,558 square feet at a cost of $1,549,599.00, or $51,653 per bed. The Florida Country Place application proposes a patient staff ratio of approximately 2.3 (30/13). Palm Court submitted an application for a 60-bed addition to its existing 120-bed facility (CON Action No. 4987). The 60-bed addition would consist of 15,260 square feet at a cost of $1,472,435.00, or $24,571 per bed. The Palm Court facility is located in Plant City in the far eastern portion of Hillsborough County, near the Polk County line. Palm Court proposed a ratio of 2.31 (60/26) patients per nursing staff. Manor Care submitted an application (CON Action No. 5006) to add 60 beds to an approved certificate of need for 60-beds for which construction has not yet begun. The area to be added would consist of 19,000 square feet at a cost of $2,187,045.00, or $36,451 per bed. The Manor Care addition would include a distinct special care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims and the 60-bed addition would provide a patient staff ratio of 1.98 (60/30.3), which includes a half-time physical therapy aide, a half-time recreational therapy assistant and an assistant director of nursing. Forum submitted an application (CON Action No. 4999) to construct a 120-bed nursing home as a part of a retirement complex. The nursing home element will consist of 49,283 square feet at a cost of $5,053,301.00, or $42,111 per bed. Forum proposes a staffing ratio of 3.0 patients per staff FTE. Forum proposed to provide respite care and hospice care, and adult day care and meals on wheels during or after the second year of operation. HHL submitted an application (CON Action No. 4978) for 120-bed nursing home consisting of 37,700 square feet at a cost of $3,900,000.00, or $32,500 per bed. The HHL facility proposes 2.27 (120/52.8) patients per staff, which includes the rehabilitation assistants and the assistant director of nursing listed by HHL. HHL proposes sub-acute care, respite care, programs for Alzheimer's Disease victims (but not a distinct special care unit) and an Alzheimer's adult day care program of from four to six patients. Cypress submitted an application (CON Action No. 5004) to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Sun City Center in southeastern Hillsborough County. The nursing home described in the application would contain 24,069 square feet at a cost of $2,125,000.00, or $35,419 per bed. But Cypress' estimated construction cost per square foot of $49.81 does not account for inflation and is unreasonably low. Median cost of nursing home construction in Florida is $55 per square foot. It is estimated that Cypress' construction cost estimate is 10-15 percent too low. Assuming that the cost estimate is 12.5 percent too low, the cost of construction would increase to approximately $2,274.485 or $37,914 per bed. Cypress did not detail any special programs in its application and proposed 2.45 (60/24.5) patients per staff. However, this ratio is questionable in view of the confusion surrounding Cypress' evidence regarding staffing and the apparent inaccuracy of the staffing presented by the application. DHRS is the state agency that preliminarily reviewed and passed on the applications and is responsible for final agency action on them. DHRS PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND ACTION. HCR, FCP, Palm Court, Manor Care, Forum, HHL, Cypress, and others filed their applications for community nursing home bed certificates of need for Hillsborough County in the January, 1987, batching cycle. On June 18, 1987, DHRS issued its State Agency Action Report (SAAR), in which it denied all of the applications except HCR's, FCP's and VHA/Oxford's (for 120 beds). Review of the SAAR in light of the evidence introduced at the final hearing indicates that DHRS erred in reviewing the applications in at least the following respects: Manor Care. -- The SAAR indicates that DHRS was not cognizant that Manor Care had a final approval for a 60-bed nursing home CON (No. 4155) to which to add the 60 beds applied for in this case, CON Action No. 5006. The SAAR was somewhat critical of the Manor Care proposal for being a two-story structure. It appears that DHRS confused the proposal to add 60-beds (CON Action No. 5006) with a parallel contingent proposal to build a new 120-bed facility (CON Action No. 5005), which Manor Care eventually withdrew during the final hearing. Actually, CON Action No. 5006, added to the approved CON No. 4155 for a new 60-bed nursing home, would result in a one-story 120-bed nursing home. On page 7 of the SAAR, DHRS indicated its understanding that Manor Care had not specified a location for its proposal. Later, on page 11, the SAAR acknowledges the true fact that Manor Care's proposed nursIng home would be located in the Northwest Hillsborough County subdistrict, which is the Local Health Plan's first priority for location of additional nursing home beds in DHRS District 6. HHL. The SAAR (p. 13) states that Convalescent Services, Inc. (CSI), the management corporation HHL and other limited partnerships for which the Kellett Brothers are the general partners, has no other nursing homes in Florida. While technically correct, Kellett limited partnerships do have other nursing homes in Florida. Staffing tables on page 17 of the SAAR are incorrect, attributing no LPNs to the HHL proposal instead of 6 and only 36 aides instead of 38. On page 18 of the SAAR, the table of patient privileges incorrectly states that the HHL applications had no patients' bill of rights. Also on page 18 of the SAAR, DHRS incorrectly omitted adult day care and community outreach from the table of programs provided by HHL. On page 26 of the SAkR, it gives HHL's private pay private room rate ($101) as its semi-private room rate (actually $69.92) The SAAR Review Matrix incorrectly omits adult day care, community outreach and sub-acute care from HHL's proposed programs and omits HHL's patients' bill of rights. Forum. -- The SAAR starts out on page 3 by misidentifying Forum as being affiliated with Hospital Corporation of America. On pages 4, 6 and 15, the SAAR incorrectly fails to recognize that a retirement living center (apartments) is part of the overall development Forum proposes. The semi-private room rate of $110 attributed to Forum's application on page 26 of the SAAR is wrong; it should have been $85. Cypress. -- The Review Matrix in the SAAR failed to identify several services and programs Cypress stated in its application that it would offer. The matrix did not recognize that Cypress would offer social activity functions within the community, would offer rehabilitation, would provide some Alzheimer's type services, (which Cypress called supportive care and mentally frail services) and physically frail services. Cypress also spoke of hospice care and respite care in its application, as well as specialized rehabilitation, physical therapy, and speech therapy. Cypress also spoke of community outreach programs, psychiatric services, home health agencies, and numerous other areas that were not recognized by DHRS in its matrix. However, there are valid reasons for some of these omissions. On May 9, 1988, the first day of the final hearing, VHA/Oxford withdrew its application. On the afternoon of May 17, 1988, DHRS announced it was supporting the grant of Palm Court's application since VHA/Oxford had withdrawn. But the only evidence to support the new DHRS position was through the testimony of Reid Jaffe, DHRS Health Services and Facilities Consultants Supervisor, who did not express a personal opinion but acted as a messsenger to relay the positions taken by others at DHRS who did not testify. NUMERIC NEED. Rule 10.5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, is a methodology for calculating net numeric need for nursing home beds. Under the methodology, gross numeric need is calculated essentially by multiplying the population of two age cohorts projected on the planning horizon by a use rate. The use rate is calculated by divIding current population by the current number of licensed beds. To obtain net need in a health planning sub-district, the methodology first prorates the gross need in the entire district, using the proportion of current licensed beds in the subdistrict to the current licensed beds in the district, and adjusts the resultant by a current occupancy rate factor (occupancy rate /0.90); then, the number of licensed beds, plus 90 percent of the number of approved beds in the subdistrict, are subtracted from the adjusted gross need in the subdistrict. With three exceptions, the parties agree on how net numeric need is calculated under the rule methodology. The parties disagree only on the current licensed bed count, the current approved bed count, and the occupancy rate at one facility that has both community nursing home beds and sheltered nursing home beds. (Sheltered nursing home beds generally are not factored into the formula.) As for the licensed bed count, the issue is whether The Home Association, a 96-bed facility in Hillsborough County, should be included as a licensed community nursing home facility or excluded as a sheltered facility. At hearing, all of the parties presenting evidence on the issue except Forum counted The Home Association's 96 beds as licensed community beds. Forum excluded The Home Association from the licensed bed count because it was not listed on the Department's Community Nursing Home Report for January 1, 1988. This same report reflects three other facilities in Hillsborough County in which the beds were formerly sheltered but as of August 1, 1987, began to be counted by the Department as community beds. Forum conceded, however, that if the Department recognizes The Home Association as a community facility, then it would be appropriate to include those beds in the licensed bed count under the rule formula. In its proposed recommended order, even Forum agrees that The Home Association beds are included in the licensed bed count. Two issues are presented relating to the inventory of approved beds under the rule formula: the date at which approved beds are to be counted; and whether the 120 beds under Careage CON #4714 and Manor Care's 60 beds under CON #4155 were approved at the pertinent time. On the first question, Forum again stands alone. In the face of a rule which is silent as to the date on which approved beds are to be counted, Forum suggests that they be counted cn the same day licensed beds are counted, December 1, 1986, for this batch. All other interested parties follow the Department's general practice of counting approved beds as of the date the State Agency Action Report for this batch was executed, June 18, 1987. Forum supports its position on the ground that use of the same date for both licensed and approved beds avoids the prospect that beds may be "lost" from the calculation if they are not licensed as of December 1, 1986, but become licensed before June 18, 1987, and therefore are no longer approved beds on that latter date. The argument is meritless. There is no evidence of any "lost" beds under this policy for this batch. Indeed, the evidence is that such beds are not lost: 120 beds at Carrollwood were licensed on December 15, 1986, after the December 1 licensed bed cut-off and before the June 18, 1987, SAAR date. These beds were included in the approved bed inventory on June 18, 1987. The Department's policy under its numeric need rule is to count approved beds as of the execution date of the SAAR. Under this policy, the need for beds in the future is predicated on the number of beds currently or soon to be available to meet the need. When more than seven months can elapse after licensed beds are counted but before the agency decision is formulated, it makes sense to count beds approved during this intervening period. A 120-bed award to Careage in the prior batch was published by DHRS in the Florida Administrative Weekly of January 23, 1987, reflecting approval on January 7, 1987. However, DHRS then received criticism.of the approval, and a new supervisor in charge initiated a second review of the circumstances and of the Careage approval. The second review did not conclude until after June 18, 1987. When it did, DHRS re- affirmed its decision to approve Careage and issued a CON for 120 beds on August 18, 1987. Although the Careage CON was issued after June 18, 1987, DHRS proved that there is a rational basis for including it in the approved bed count under these unusual circumstances. The Careage CON represents 120 beds approved in the batching cycle preceding the one at issue in this case. Counting the 120 beds as approved promotes sound health planning. The projection of net need on the planning horizon is predicated on the most accurate count of approved beds from prior batching cycles that can be anticipated to come on line in the near future. As of June 18, 1987, there were 308 other beds approved but not yet licensed in Hillsborough County. Included among these 308 approved beds are 60 beds awarded to Manor Care under CON 4155 by Stipulation dated March 30, 1987. By mistake, DHRS did not count Manor Care's 60-bed CON in the SAAR. This mistake was not discovered, and DHRS served discovery responses and took a final position on need, as required by prehearing orders, that did not count the Manor Care CON. But this mistake f fact should now be corrected, even if it could have been discovered earlier through the use of due diligence, so that the health planning decision resulting from these de novo proceedings will be predicated on the correct facts. See Gulf Court Nursing Center v. HRS, 483 So.2d 700, 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). It is appropriate to include Manor Care's finally approved 60 beds in the rule formula. Adding Careage's 120 beds, the total approved bed count is 428. The final variation accounting for the differences in the parties' calculations under the formula is the manner in which the occupancy rate should be computed at John Knox Village, a facility containing both community and sheltered beds. The issue is whether the patient days in this mixed facility should be prorated between the two types of beds or whether the full patient days for both types of beds should be used in calculating the occupancy rate in the facility. There is no separate report of occupancy by bed type for this mixed facility. The number of patient days delivered in the community beds at John Knox is not known. If the patient days for the entire facility are prorated according to the percentage the community beds bear to the total number of beds, there is a necessary but wholly unsupported and speculative assumption that the proportion of patient days delivered in community beds is identical to the proportion of community beds. DHRS historically has been unwilling to make this assumption and has always included the total number of beds and patient days in mixed facilities to determine the occupancy rate under the community bed rule. The rationale supporting this policy has been appropriately explicated on the record. The use of prorated patient days to determine occupancy in mixed facilities, as suggested by DHRS for the first time at final hearing, also is a change from the position the Department took when exhibits were exchanged and the prehearing stipulation was executed and then relied on by the parties. Because the Department, as a party litigant, did not prorate in its prehearing submissions, it cannot do so at hearing in the absence of fraud, mistake of fact, or newly discovered evidence. No evidence of any such extenuating circumstances was presented. The only explanation DHRS gave for changing its treatment of the John Knox occupancy data was that more accurate recent data (using daily census data instead of first day of the month census data) furnished by the Local Health Council was prorated. But DHRS just as easily could have prorated the older, less accurate data if it had chosen to take that position at the time the parties were required to take final positions in prehearing procedures. The Department, therefore, is precluded from adopting a posture at hearing relating to the treatment of patient days in mixed facilities which is different from that reflected in the Department's prehearing stipulation and exchanged exhibits. In summary, the appropriate numeric need calculation must include The Home Association in licensed beds, count both Careage's 120-bed CON and Manor Care's 60-bed CON in the approved bed count, and use the full John Knox bed complement and patient days in determining the Hillsborough County occupancy rate. Using these factors in the rule methodology, the net need for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County for the January, 1990, planning horizon is 231, as reflected in the calculation included in the attached Appendix To Recommended Order, Case Nos. 87-3409, etc. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, provides that DHRS normally may not approve more beds than the numeric net need calculated under rule methodology. In this case, none of the circumstances specified in the rule that would justify exceeding the numeric net need were proven by the evidence. At the same time, the rule does not require DHRS to fill all, or as much as possible, of the numeric net need by attempting to "mix and match" applications to come as close as possible to the calculated number. LOCAL GEOGRAPHIC NEED PRIORITIES. The current, 1985 District VI Local Health Plan provides that, after consideration of numeric bed need under the rule need methodology, its "priority need rankings" should be considered in the competitive review for new nursing homes. Hil1sborough County, Northwest, is priority rank number one. HCR, FCP, Manor Care, Forum and HHL all propose to locate their nursing homes there. Cypress proposes to locate in Sun City Center and Palm Court is in Plant City, both in Hillsborough County, Southeast, an area ranked fifth in priority in District VI. Plant City is close to Polk County, which the Local Health Plan designates as the fourth ranked area in priority. Cypress proposes its 60-bed nursing home approximately 1/4 mile down the road from an existing nursing home called Sun Terrace, operated by CSI. Quality of care concerns have arisen due to rapid fill-up of 60 additional beds recently licensed at Sun Terrace and opened in September, 1987. See Findings of Fact 83-87, below. As a result, Sun Terrace has imposed on itself a moratorium on new admissions until quality of care concerns can be addressed. In part as a result of the moratorium, Sun Terrace's occupancy rate at the time of the final hearing was only approximately 65 percent, leaving 42 empty beds. MEDICAID NEED. One of the three major considerations for competitive review of nursing home CON applications in the Longterm Care section of the 1985-1987 State Health Plan is "resource access." Except as reflected in the priority rankings, geographic access is not an issue in this proceeding. (Priority/Policy 7 of the Local Health Plan, setting a goal of providing for nursing home services within 30 minutes travel time of 90 percent of urban residents and within 45 minutes travel time of 90 percent of rural residents, already has been achieved in District VI.) But, to address concern for financial access, Priority/Policy 2 of the Local Health Plan provides that applicants "should commit, at a minimum, to serve Medicaid eligible patients in proportion to the representation of elderly poor in the subdistrict." In Hillsborough County, Northwest, where all but two of the applicants propose to locate, the elderly poverty rate is 18.6; in Hillsborough County, Southeast, where Cypress and Pal:n Court would be located, the elderly poverty rate is 15.6 percent. The applicants propose to commit the following percentages of their nursing home beds to the care of Medicaid- 4 eligible patients: HCR, 70 percent; FCP, 70 percent; Manor Care, 30 percent; HHL, 45 percent; Palm Court, 70 percent; and Cypress, approximately 10 percent. Cypress proposed in its application to commit 10 percent of its beds for Medicaid use. It attempted to update its application to provide for a 15 percent Medicaid commitment. The update was said to have been the result of a decrease in the average age of the residents of Sun City Center, Cypress' proposed primary service area, from 73 to 70. But the percentage was calculated by first estimating 60 percent private pay and "backing down" to a Medicare percentage of 25 percent, leaving 15 percent Medicaid. The evidence was persuasive that this attempted update was not due to extrinsic factors. See Conclusions of Law 20 to 25, below. Forum has committed only to have 50 percent of its beds Medicaid- certified and to meet the requirements of Priority/Policy 2. Although Priority/Policy 2 is written as a minimum Medicaid percentage, no evidence was presented from which to determine how high a percentage of Medicaid commitment is desirable. There was, e.g., no evidence on which to find that a Medicaid percentage as high as four times the elderly poverty rate is more desirable than a percentage approximately equal to or perhaps just a bit higher than the elderly poverty rate. To the contrary, the only evidence on the subject was that DHRS does not now consider the Medicaid percentage to be as important as it was considered to be in the past and that DHRS now just checks to see that the percentage approximates the elderly poor rate in the County. NEED FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PROGRAMS. Description Of The Disease And The Need. There is a need in Hillsborough County for additional nursing home beds and services for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims. There is no known nursing home in Hillsborough County which provides a distinct care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims. There is an estimated unmet need by Alzheimer's patients for nursing home care in Hillsborough County of approximately 1,271 by July, 1989. DHRS has recommended that "preference should be given to applicants for new nursing home beds which propose the development of special Alzheimer's units" and "greater preference should be given to units that will also provide adult day care and/or respite care." Alzheimer's Disease is a brain disorder that was discovered at the turn of the century. It primarily affects persons over the age of 60. The term "related disorders" is used because some non-Alzheimer's disorders mimic Alzheimer's Disease symptoms and create many of the same needs for specialized care. Typically, Alzheimer's Disease results in gradual memory loss and, as memory loss progresses, results in the need for ever- increasing personal care. In the earlier stages, the victim is often in reasonably good physical condition and simply exhibits signs of recent memory loss. However, as memory loss increases, various activities of daily living are disrupted. Victims encounter more serious physical problems and exhibit symptoms such as wandering, significant weight loss, clumsiness, incontinence and antisocial behavior. In the last stages of the disease, the victim requires increasingly intense medical attention, becomes totally dependent on others, and may eventually require total skilled nursing care. The intensity of care required for the Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victim increases as the disease progresses. In early stages, the victims are typically cared for at home by a family member. The nature of care required for an Alzheimer's Disease or related disorders victim is very exhausting for the care giver. Toward the end of the first stage of the disease when the victim requires increasing supervision, the victim can be maintained longer in the home if there is available to the care giver some form of occasional rest, such as adult day care or respite care. Adult day care and respite care provide opportunities for the primary care giver to "take a break". See Findings of Fact 133 to 135, below. An Alzheimer's Disease patient usually requires inpatient nursing home care late in the second stage of the disease. If the patient is ambulatory, he often exhibits a wandering behavior. Approximately 50 percent of the Alzheimer's victims admitted to a nursing home have the potential to wander. Ultimately, Alzheimer's victims become bed-ridden and require skilled or sub- acute nursing home care, including tube feedings, cathethers, and artificial life support. Historically, ambulatory Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes have been mixed with other patients. The Alzheimer's victim has often disrupted life in the nursing home because of the victim's wandering, incontinence, confusion, and socially unacceptable behavior. Because of these characteristics, some nursing homes avoid admitting Alzheimer's patients and others control problem behavior with sedation and physical restraint. A separate Alzheimer's care unit enables the nursing home to utilize special techniques to manage the Alzheimer's disease victim and allows the victim to maintain his cognitive capabilities for as long as possible, without restraint and sedation. Nursing home patients who do not suffer from Alzheimer's and related diseases are often agitated and disrupted by the Alzheimer's patients' unacceptable social behavior. A separate unit for Alzheimer's Disease victims accommodates the needs of the non-Alzheimer's patient by eliminating unpleasant, often violent encounters between dementia victims and other patients. Distinct Alzheimer's special care units provide better care for Alzheimer's disease and related disorder victims for several reasons. A separate unit eliminates the tendency of the Alzheimer's disease patient to disrupt the remainder of the nursing home. A separate unit provides a smaller, safer, specially designed area with specially trained staff to address the unique needs of the Alzheimer's disease victim. A separate unit is preferable to mixing Alzheimer's patients with non- Alzheimer's patients. Traditional nursing home programs and activities are often inappropriate and counterproductive for the Alzheimer's patient. HCR's Proposal. The 120-bed nursing home proposed by HCR will help meet the needs in Hillsborough County for adult day care, respite care, sub-acute care and a special care unit for Alzheimer's Disease and related disorder victims. The programs and services will enable the HCR nursing home to provide at one location a complete continuum of care from the least intense level of care in adult day care to total (sub-acute) care. HCR's Alzheimer's special care unit will incorporate special design features, special patient activities and programs and higher staffing levels to meet the unique needs cf Alzheimer's disease victims. These features are intended to compensate for memory loss and provide a safe environment where cognitive capabilities can be maintained for as long as possible while patients enjoy personal freedom without the use of restraints and sedation which have typified the treatment of unmanageable Alzheimer's and dementia patients. The architectural design of the HCR nursing home will accommodate the tendency of Alzheimer's victims to wander by allowing the victims to ambulate in circular patterns through the facility and the adjacent court yard and by providing an electronic warning system to prevent inadvertent exit from the nursing home. Patient bathrooms are specially designed to avoid fright and confusion through the use of automatic lighting fixtures, appropriate coloring and distinctly shaped fixtures and waste baskets. Calming colors, color coding, carefully selected art work, special floor coverings and labeling are provided. Separate dining and activities areas enable the nursing home to provide programs and activities for Alzheimer's disease victims in a more effective and efficient manner than would be possible if the same areas also had to be used for non- Alzheimer's Disease victims. The proposed HCR nursing home includes a discreet area designed for an adult day care center, which will share some resources with the nursing home. The program will accommodate 12 persons and be operated in accordance with adult day care regulations. The physical spaces include an entry separate from the main nursing home entry, a lobby, an office, a therapeutic kitchen for use by the patients, toilet facilities, an activities center, and a lounge with an adjacent covered porch. The adult day care program will be staffed by a nurse director, an assistant and volunteers. The participants in this program will be provided with various activities of daily living in an environment developed for Alzheimer's Disease victiMs. This program is intended to provide placement for persons not yet in need of in-patient care and will provide an alternative to premature nursing home admission. Manor Care's Proposal. Manor Care proposes a dedicated 30-bed specialized unit for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. In 1985, Manor Care perceived the need to treat Alzheimer's patients in a manner different than patients in the general nursing home population. Manor Care's task force of nurses, administrators, architects, and designers developed an Alzheimer's program which recognizes the special needs of the patient. Manor Care now operates 21 special dedicated Alzheimer's units throughout the country and is planning 16 additional Alzheimer's units. Manor Care's comprehensive Alzheimer's program encompasses five components: (1) environment, (2) staffing and training, (3) programming, (4) specialized medical services, and (5) family support. Environment. The proposed 30-bed Alzheimer's unit will be separate from the rest of the facility and self-contained, with its own dining room, activities room, lounge, quiet/privacy room, nurses sub-station, director's office, and outdoor courtyard. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's residents enables staff to provide individualized attention and special assistance. By providing a simple and separate dining environment, residents are no longer embarrassed by confusion and agitation displayed in the presence of non-Alzheimer's residents during mealtime. A separate lounge area is provided for families to visit with residents. In a typical nursing center, the family must visit a confused resident in the presence of other families; families of Alzheimer's residents can find this embarrassing. A separate lounge makes visitation more desirable for Alzheimer's residents and families. The quiet/privacy room can be used by families as a quiet area to visit with a family member, by residents who want to spend time alone, or by staff persons and residents for individualized programming away from the activity on the unit. The outdoor courtyard, which is enclosed and accessible to the unit through the activities room and hallway door, allows Alzheimer's residents to walk outside freely without wandering off. The Manor Care Alzheimer's unit is specially designed with features which reduce environmental stress by minimizing glare (using parabolic lenses), noise and bold patterns which increase agitation in Alzheimer's residents. Throughout the unit, a residential, uncluttered atmosphere is emphasized, using soft, contrasting colors and textures. The unit also contains visual cues to increase orientation. Furnishings are functional, durable and easy to maintain. Staffing and Training. The Alzheimer's unit has its own specialized staff including a Unit Director, Activities Director, and nursing staff. The unit is staffed at a higher "nurse to resident" ratio than the rest of the facility. Staffing patterns emphasizu continuity to ensure that residents receive individualized care. The nurses become f;i1iar with the behavior and abilities of each resident and are able to render care appropriately. Programming. The goal of programming and activities in the Alzheimer's unit is to improve the quality of life of the Alzheimer's resident. This specialized programming results in reducing the use of medications and restraints necessary to manage the Alzheimer's resident. The Manor Care Alzheimer's activity program is success-oriented; staff provide activities designed to allow Alzheimer's residents to succeed more frequently. (They usually fail when mixed in with the general nursing home population.) specialized Medical Services. The use of consultant medical specialists is an integral part of Manor Care's Alzheimer's Program. Specialists provide diagnostic and treatment services for Alzheimer's residents upon admission to the unit, and thereafter when deemed medically appropriate. Family support. Family support is another important aspect of the Manor Care Alzheimer's program. Families are very supportive of the unit's programming and have benef itted from the understanding and support available to them. The Others' Proposals. None of the other applicants propose specialized units for the care of patients with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. Alzheimer's sufferers will be treated in an "open unit" at the HHL facility and will be placed as compatibly as possible with other residents. Although these residents will be able to intermingle with other residents, their movements will be monitored by the "wander guard" system and all doors will be equipped with buzzers connected to the nurse's stations. The HHL facility will be designed to incorporate secure courtyards and other areas where residents will be free to wander safely throughout the living areas. The facility's nursing personnel will be specially trained to provide services to Alzheimer's sufferers. The proposed HHL facility will also offer an adult Alzheimer's day care program. Although the program will be small (accommodating between four to six individuals) it will interface with the Alzheimer's program offered to the in-house residents. As with the respite program, the Alzheimer's adult day care program will give the families of Alzheimer's disease sufferers an opportunity to take a breather during the day, and the participants will benefit from the special Alzheimer's programs and activities offered. With its proposed 60-bed addition, Palm Court plans to add a program directed specifically at persons suffering from Alzheimers and related brain disorders. Currently, it does not have one. Neither FCP nor Forum make any particular provision for the care of Alzheimer's patients. FCP points out that its facilities in other states historically have cared for this special category of patient, primarily through use of high quality, thereapy-oriented programs, especially at the earlier stages of the disease. Cypress proposes to locate off of a central core: a 60-bed nursing home, offering both intermediate and skilled care, with its own recreation area and dining, serviced from the central kitchen; (2) a 20-bed assisted living unit (which Cypress also calls "supportive care") for mentally frail and physically strong individuals which has its own outdoor recreation area and dining area; and (3) another 40 assisted living beds broken into two 20-unit wings for mentally strong and physically frail individuals, with their own dining and recreation area, including outdoor recreation. The various levels of care are separate since each of the levels have different needs and methods of treatment. However, Cypress will only accept in the mentally frail, physically strong wing, Alzheimer's-type patients who are in the earlier stages of the disease. QUALITY OF CARE. Priority/Policy 9 of the 1985 Local Health Plan states: "Applicants should be evaluated as to their achievement of superior quality ratings by DHRS and other indications of quality as available." Track Record. At the time of application, three of the nursing homes operated by HCR in Florida had superior licenses and the remaining homes had standard licenses. FCP has one nursing home in Florida. It is rated standard by DHRS. None of the facilities operated by FCP's principals, the Phillipses, has ever been in receivership or had a Medicaid or Medicare certification revoked. The Phillipses have an excellent reputation in Ohio for their operation and management of nursing homes and have remained in positive standing with federal and state certification agencies. Manor Care's proposed 60-bed addition will be owned by Manor Care of Florida, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor HealthCare Corporation. Manor HealthCare Corporation is a publicly-held corporation which owns and operates about 130 nursing homes in various states. Manor Care owns and operates nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLFs) in Florida. All nine Florida nursing homes exceed DHRS licensure standards; the majority of Manor Care's Florida facilities hold a superior license rating. Manor Care has never had a license denied, revoked, or suspended in Florida. Manor Care has opened three nursing homes in Florida in recent years. All three are superior rated. Palm Court Nursing Home has a superior license, with zero deficiencies, from DHRS' Office of Licensure and Certification with the most recent inspection having occurred between May 2 and May 4 immediately preceding the beginning of the final hearing. It is managed by National Health Corp., Murpheesboro, Tennessee. National Health Corp is an owner-operator of other facilities and either owns or operates some 19 facilities in Florida. It has managed Palm Court Nursing Home since its inception and, if the 60 bed addition is approved, will manage the addition. Forum has never had a license denied, revoked or suspended, nor had a facility placed in receivership. Forum has never had any nursing home placed in receivership at any time during its ownership, management or leasing. Forum has a history of providing quality of care and owns and operates facilities in other states which hold superior ratings. Forum has a corporate policy of seeking to attain a superior rating in those states which have such a system. Forum presently owns and operates one facility in Florida. That facility is rated standard and was acquired by Forum within the past two years. That facility, which only has 35 nursing beds, is not a prototype of what Forum proposes in this case. Seventeen (17) of the twenty-one (21) nursing homes currently managed by CSI are located in states which utilize a superior rating system. Of the facilities that are eligible to receive superior licenses, CSI maintains superior ratings in over 80 percent of its beds. CSI's Sun Terrace in Sun City Center was the subject of an extensive survey issued by the Office of Licensure and Certification, an arm of DHRS, in April, 1988, that cited numerous deficiencies in the areas of quality of care, staffing, and programs at the Sun Terrace facility. The licensure survey also cited violations of state and federal laws in the handling of controlled substances and problems with resident care plans at the facility. The findings of DHRS in its licensure survey of Sun Terrace appear to be serious matters, the resolution of which is clearly within the control of CSI. Following the opening of the second 60 beds at Sun Terrace in September, 1987, the facility experienced a shortage of nursing personnel which necessitated a greater use of agency personnel to staff the facility. The problems cited by DHRS at Sun Terrace were largely the result of the increased use of agency personnel, lack of documentation, a newly licensed administrator, and the unexpected resignation of the director of nursing. Even before the DHRS licensure survey, CSI had taken affirmative action to address the problems at Sun Terrace, including a voluntary moratorium on new admissions. In response to the recent problems at Sun Terrac, CSI has moved toward more centralized management of its facilities. CSI now requires administrators to adhere very closely to the corporate policies and procedures. Further, the addition of a second full-time nurse/consultant will double the frequency of quality of care monitoring visits at CSI facilities. The problems experienced at Sun Terrace are atypical of CSI-managed facilities. When CSI's policies and procedures are properly followed, the result is excellent nursing care and services. But the problems at Sun Terrace are examples of what can happen when an organization attempts to expand operations more rapidly than it should. In this connection, CSI has received seven CONs since July 1984. Two of the seven are preliminary approvals that have been challenged and have not yet gone to hearing. One was the 60-bed addition to Sun Terrace which is now licensed. Another is a 73-bed nursing home in Brevard County which is expected to open within the next several months, and another is a 21-bed addition project in Collier County. Cypress has never operated a nursing home and has no track record. Staffing. Staffing arrangments are important considerations in assessing the quality of care to be expected from a proposal, but there is not necessarily a proportional correlation between staffing and quality. How staffing affects quality also depends on the breadth and types of programs to be offered. For example, Alzheimer's programs and sub-acute care will require higher staffing ratios. HCR, FCP, Manor Care, Palm Court and Forum all propose staffing arrangments that meet or exceed state requirements. See Findings Of Fact 1-5, above. Cypress' application, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired in its proposed staffing. The staffing plan presented by Cypress on its Updated Table 11 fails to meet the requirements of Rule 10D-29, F.A.C. Specifically, no provision has been made for an activity director (10D-29.116), a medical director (10D-29.107), a pharmacy consultant (10D-29.112), or a medical records consultant (10D-29.118), all of which are required by rule. (Cypress attempted to explain that it would have a pharmacy consultant on contract who would bill patients separately.) Further, no provision has been made for utilization review to monitor the appropriateness of the placement of residents, as required by Rule 10D-29. Cypress' Updated Table 11 provides for LPNs of 1.5 FTEs on the first shift and night shift and 6.0 FTEs on the second shift. The second shift LPN coverage is over-staffed by 4 1/2 FTEs which will result in inefficiency. Rule 10D-29.108, F.A.C., requires staffing of nursing assistants on all shifts. The Cypress staffing plan makes no provision for nursing assistants on the second shift. In testimony, Cypress attempted to explain that Table 11 was wrong and that the second shift LPNs should have been aides. The proposes Cypress nursing home will not offer 24-hour RN coverage. The third shift has no RN coverage. Based upon the proposed staffing pattern appearing in Cypress' Updated Table 11, its proposed facililty would not qualify for licensure under Florida regulations, much less qualify for a superior rating. Cypress has not secured or identified the day-to-day management of the proposed nursing home. No medical director has been secured or identified. Quality Assurance programs. All of the applicants except Cypress have existing quality assurance (QA) programs that are adequate to assL're quality of care. From the evidence HCR's, Manor Care's, HHL's and Forum's QA programs are comparable and are the best among the applicants. Palm Court has had results comparable to or better than the others , which is itself evidence of an adequate QA program. Meanwhile, CSI, despite an evidently superior QA program, has experienced quality programs due to rapid fill-up of its 60 additiional beds at Sun Terrace. Cypress has no experience operating a nursing home. Not surprisingly, it professes to desire quality and to plan to implement stringent QA programs. But its plans at this stage are not as developed and detailed as the existing QA programs being used by the other applicants at other facilities. Other Factors. Whether Therapies Are In-House or Contracted. Assuming a need for it, and reasonable cost of providing it, provision of therapies--e.g., physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy-- in-house generally is preferable to providing them by contracts with third parties. From an operational and administrative perspective, there are advantages to providing physical therapy services (PT) on an in- house basis. Contracted physical therapy staff tend to be available only for scheduled treatments; in-house staff are always available to assist staff and perform unscheduled maintenance therapy. In-house physical therapy staff work regularly with the nursing home staff. They are present within the facility anc learn the operation of the nursing home facility better than outside agencies. Manor Care proposes to provide in-house physical therapy staff, as opposed to employing outside physical therapy staff on a contract basis. The evidence was that the other applicants plan to provide all of these therapies through third- party contracts. Palm Court has one full-time PT assistant who works under the direction of a licensed physical therapist who now divides time among three 120- bed nursing homes managed by National Health Corp. The service of this licensed physical therapist is provided as part of National Health Corp's management services. Having to cover another 60 beds at Palm Court will spread the service even thinner. In addition, Palm Court's administrator conceded that the single PT assistant in Palm Court's application will not be enough once 60-beds are added to the facility; two will be required. Of course, the trade-off (implied in Finding of Fact 102, above) for providing in-house therapy is that it is less efficient if full use of the services is not required. De-institutionalization. FCP, Forum and Cypress have made special efforts to "de- institutionalize" nursing home care at their proposed facilities. All three proposals emphasize the provision of nursing care within aresidential development--a combination of retirement apartments, assisted living accommodations and nursing home. (See also this concept's impact on Continuum of Care concerns, Findings of Fact 114-127, below.) FCP's proposed facility is designed with a residential appearance to facilitate and implement the philosophy of de-institutionalization co:tained in its application. It reflects FCP's modular approach to care with residential units in wings tied to a common area of support services. The support services are extensive. There are activities areas, craft areas, exercise rooms, therapy areas, a beauty salon and barber shop, men's and women's recreational areas, private dining rooms, a community dining room, screened patios and porches, a newsstand, a bank, a post office, a library, a chapel, a screened-in gazebo, and a swimming pool. The exterior amenities of the design include a pond, an exercise course, a sitting deck, and a putting green. The center core and its recreation and therapy programs are designed to encourage interact ion among the residents in all the different levels of care. Although the third floor, where the nursing home is located, also has a secondary lounge and supplemental dining area, the primary dining area, as well as all of the other amenities, are on the first floor to enhance the interaction. The 30-bed size of FCP's proposed nursing home unit is a part of the original Phillips concept of a de- institutionalized setting, enabling the provision of more personalized care. Where there are fewer residents to care for, a better rapport between the residents and the care givers and a more family-type, personal atmosphere are achieved. This 30-bed concept previously has been approved by the Department in Lee and Polk Counties. Those projects are operationally, structurally, and physically identical to this proposed project. The symmetrical, 3-story design minimizes the amount of travel distance for the resident at the farthest unit to the amenities of the center core and its services. The nursing unit is on the third and smallest floor so that the distance by elevator to the central core for the nursing home iesidents is at a minimum'while still providing those residents with the greatest opportunity for quiet time. Privacy is an essential element in achieving high quality of care. The semi-private room plan utilized in this proposal is a unique approach to maximizing privacy for each resident. A permanent partial partition separating the two beds in each room effectively creates two private rooms. This provides a private space for each resident with his or her own thermostat, window, storage space, television, and telephone accommodation, and heightened auditory privacy. There will be equal access to and control of the vestibule and bathroom for each resident. The 585 gross square feet per bed in the FCP proposal is approximately one-third greater than standard nursing home room configuration. Forum's proposal's chief effort in furtherance of the goal of deinstitutiona1izationother than the continuum of care concept and overall residential appearance--is in the relatively large and "up-scale" living areas. The Cypress facility will include a central core dividing the two 60- bed portions of the project. The central core will include an administrative area, a chapel, a beauty and barber shop, enclosed courtyard, physical and occupational therapy, dining, a central kitchen, and a laundry area. One trade-off for de-institutionalization is cost. Both FCP and Forum generally cost more than the others. Cypress claims not to, but its projected construction cost of $49 per square foot is unrealistically low. See Findings of Fact 147 and 149, below. PROGRAMS (OTHER THAN ALZHEIMER'S). Continnum of Care. As just alluded to, several of the proposals emphasize the placement of their nursing home within a larger community of persons needing different levels of care. FCP. FCP proposes the construction of a 30-bed nursing unit as part of a family owned and operated, 120-unit, full continuum of care facility for the elderly. The facility also contains 60 independent living apartments and 30 adult congregate living units. The full continuum of care is proposed in a uniquely designed, de-institutionalized, home-like atmosphere. FCP offers a therapeutic community offering individualized, personalIzed care in small self- contained units, each specializing in various levels of care ranging from day care and respite care, through apartments for the elderly and assisted living, to skilled, post-hospital rehabilitation. The continuum of care will provide a homogeneous environment through which residents can move as their medical and personal needs change. Forum. Forum Group, Inc., is a national company which owns, develops and operates retirement living centers in a number of states. Forum's proposed nursing home will be part of a total retirement living center containing two other levels of care, assisted living (or ACLF units) and independent apartment units. Forum's proposal calls for provision of a continuum of care, from independent living to assisted living to nursing care, all on the same campus. Cypress. Cypress Total Care would be part of an overall medical project known as Cypress Park. The corporation was formed and a master plan was created, to be developed in two phases. Phase I is a 120-bed nursing facility consisting of 60 skilled and intermediate nursing beds, the subject of these proceedings, and 60 personal care units. Phase II would consist of a 290-unit adult congregate living facility (ACLF) and 143 units of independent villa housing on a golf course with nature trails and other amenities. Also proposed in Phase II would be units of medical offices and commercial health-related facilities to support the community. The area selected by Cypress is adjacent to the Sun Hill Medical Arts Building and the Community Arts Building, as well as a hospital owned by Hospital Corporation of America known as Sun City Hospital. These components would be worked into the overall master plan proposed by Cypress. Cypress proposes a multi-level assessment program. The 120-bed Cypress Park Community facility will have an independent level one facility in Sun City Center which will admit healthy elderly residents. These elderly may have canes, but no walkers or wheelchairs, and they will function normally in their activities of daily living. These individuals may prepare two meals a day in their apartments, or have them in the dining room. The main meal will be in the dining room. Social services and activities will be provided and recommended to the independent living residents to enhance their lifestyles. A home health agency is planned as a part of the center so that house calls can be made to insure that any necessary medications are taken and that residents receive the services they might need from time to time. (Cypress has not yet applied for a CON for its home health agency.) The next level of living is for patients who need more assistance. These are residents who require 24-hour companion service. These patients do not require skilled nursing care and do not require the institutional environment of a nursing home. Some of these paients may be in the first stage of Alzheimer's, or they may be physically frail, but not enough to require skilled nursing care. This level is primarily for those individuals who are physically frail and mentally strong or mentally frail and physically strong. The physically frail and mentally strong may have limited ambulatory capabilities, need assistance in activities of daily living, need medication, or need all their meals prepared. As noted above, this level of services also will be provided to individuals who are physically strong but mentally frail. The majority of these people will be Alzheimer's residents, they must be carefully monitored 24 hours a day and receive strong psychological support. The next level of care offered is for individuals who require some nursing care and no longer qualify for the level two care described above. This will be intermediate nursing care and will consist of care from certified nursing aides and licensed practical nurses. These individuals do not require skilled nursing care. Rehabilitation is the key to this portion of the plan, and the rehabilitative center will be involved to constantly push these individuals to the point of rehabilitation where they can reenter an independent lifestyle. If individuals progress further, they can move into the skilled nursing care center in which they will receive care not only from nursing aides and licensed practical nurses, but also from registered nurses. The final level would be acute hospital care which would be provided by the existing Sun City Hospital. The medical staff who are involved in the Cypress project also are on the medical staff of the Sun City Hospital and will be working and consulting with individuals both in the acute hospital care and the nursing home setting to provide appropriate levels of care to the individuals who need it. The nursing home will share IV teams, work with tracheotomy patients, A.D.A. dieticians, accounting services, and other services with the existing hospital in Sun City Center. Palm Court. Palm Court, while currently a free-standing 120- bed nursing home, is located on property where construction of a 360-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) is now starting. In addition, Palm Court has transfer agreements with area hospitals including Plant City Hospital, South Florida Baptist Hospital, Brandon Humana Hospital and Lakeland Regional Medical Center. It also has formal working relationships with home health agencies and with elderly programs in the area. The Others. The other applicants--HCR, Manor Care and HHL-- propose free-standing nursing homes. But all can be expected to make efforts to achieve transfer and other agreements with local hospitals, home health agencies and providers of care for the elderly where reasonable and appropriate. Sub-Acute Care. The HCR nursing home will be staffed and equipped to provide sub- acute care. The sub-acute care services provided by HCR will include high tech services such as ventilator care, IV therapy, pulmonary aids, tube feeding, hyperalimentation, and short and long term rehabilitation. HCR currently provides a wide variety of these sub-acute services in its existing nursing homes. CSI currently provides sub-acute nursing services at its existing Florida facilities. Those services include ventilators, hyperalimentation, intravenous therapy, Clinitron beds, heparin pumps, nosogastric and Jejunoscopy tube feedings, subclavian lines, and Hickman catheters. These service will be provided at HHL's proposed facility. Forum will provide skilled and intermediate care, and the following services will be offered at the proposed facility: Sterile dressing changes for decubitus care. Brittle diabetics on sliding scale insulin. Continuous administration of oxygen. Sterile case of tracheotomies. Ventilators. Continuous bladder irrigation. Hyper-alimentation or N-G feeding. IV treatment. Special medication monitoring (e.g. heparin, comadin). New post-operative cases facing hospital discharge as a result of D.R.G. reimbursement. The skilled nursing services to be provided by FCP include parenteral nutrition, internal nutrition, tracheostomy care, respirator care, skin wound decubitus care, ostomy care, and head trauma care. Palm Court also will provide sub-acute care. Adult Day Care Adult day care is a part of the specialized Azfleimer's program HCR proposes. In addition, HHL, FCP and Forum offer adult day care. Respite Care. HCR and Manor Care offer respite care as part of their Alzheimer's programs. Both will have no minimum length of stay and no extra charge over the regular daily rate for nursing home care. All the others except Palm Court also offer respite care, but Cypress' proposal for respite care is sketchy. HHL says it will offer respite care at no extra charge. D. Hospice. Only HCR, Forum and HHL offer hospice care as part of their nursing home programs. F. Rehabilitation and Community Outreach. All of the applicants propose rehabilitative (or restorative) care and some kind of community outreach programs. The distinctions among the ideas expressed by the applicants are not particularly competitively significant. However, the manner in which the therapies are delivered can be significant. See Finding of Facts 102 to 105, above. HOW SOON THE PROJECT BECOMES OPERATIONAL. Because there is a shortage of nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, there is a valid concern how long it would take for the holder of a CON to get its facility operational. Priority/Policy 3 of the 1985 Local Health Plan gives expression to this concern as follows: In competitive reviews, preference should be given to applicants with a documented history of implementing certificates of need within the statutory time frames. Of the applicants who have developed nursing homes in the past (i.e., excluding Cypress), all but Palm Court have a history of timely implementing their CONs. Palm Court had to request an extension of time in implementing its existing 120-bed facility. But Palm Court bought the CON for that project from the original owners in 1982 or 1983. Palm Court then had to secure another, more suitable location, re-design the facility, get construction financing and enter into a construction contract before construction could begin. This delayed the project and resulted in administrative litigation to decide whether Palm Court should lose the CON for failure to timely implement it or be given an extension of time. Palm Court prevailed, and the facility opened in September, 1985. HHL, through CSI, also has a history of timely implementing CONs but recent expansion in Florida raises some question whether it can continue to be as timely in implementing this CON, along with the others. See Findings of Fact 82-87,98, and 100, above. Generally, an addition of beds to an existing nursing home can be constructed more quickly than a new facility, giving Palm Court an advantage in potential speed of implementation. similarly, Manor Care, which is prepared to begin construction on its finally approved 60-bed CON, has an advantage over the others, as well as a potential construction cost savings over Palm Court. See Findings of Fact 146, below. COST OF CARE. Cost of Construction And Development. Advantage of Additions. Within limits placed on recovery of capital costs under the Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement programs now in place (which, to some extent, are emulated by private health care insurers and employers' health benefit plans), construction and development costs generally are reflected in the charges patients pay for nursing home care. Additions, such as Palm Court's and Manor Care's proposals, have a cost advantage over the other proposals. Construction sites already have been prepared, and it is not ncessary to duplicate some features already incorporated in the original structure, such as the kitchen, laundry and building plant. Due to delays in finalization of its approved CON for 60 beds, Manor Care has the fortuitous additional potential cost advantage of being able to construct both the "original facility" and the 60-bed "addition" at the same time. Quality vs. Cost Trade-Off. Other than the cost advantage of adding on, and of saving the contractor's fee by using an in-house construction team (as HCR does), reduced cost of construction generally will reflect reduced quality. For example, some of the quality features incorporated in the proposals of Forum, FCP and Cypress will cost more. See Finding of Fact 113, above. Put another way, lower costs may result in lower patient charges but also may result in lower quality, everything else being equal. The costs of construction of the various proposals may be found in Findings of Fact 1 to 7, above. It should also be noted at this point that Cypress' facility design has features--primarily unusual wall and roof angles and one water heater requiring larger pipe sizing-- which make its construction costs appear lower than they should be. Cost Overruns. The applicants' respective records for cost overruns in implementing CONs mirror their records for timeliness. See Findings of Fact 138-143, above. Cypress has no track record; all the others except Palm Court have experienced no cost overruns; Palm Court's $1.3 million cost overrun was precipitated by the need to secure another site and re-design the facility after it acquired the CON for 120 beds; and CSI, which would be responsible for implementing HHL's proposal, is involved in recent expansion which could affect its ability to bring all of its' CONs on line within budget. Cost of Operations. Economies of Scale--Size of Facility. In addition to construction and development costs, cost of operations are reflected in patient charges. It generally is accepted that a 120-bed nursing home is the optimal size for operational efficiencies. In this respect, the proposals by HCR, Forum and HHL have an advantage over the others. Manor Care has the advantage of proposing to expand a less efficient 60-bed nursing home to an optimally efficient 120-bed facility. To some extent, the generally accepted principle that 120-bed nursing homes are more desirable may have become dated. Two of the proposals--FCP's and Cypress'--combine some of the operating efficiencies of a 120-bed nursing home with the continuum of care and quality of care that can be achieved in a 120-bed living complex that incorporates a smaller nursing unit with other living units of different levels of care. By c(Jmparison, these type facilities are less institutionalized than a 120-bed nursing home, whether free-standing or incorporated within a larger complex with other living units. See Findings of Fact 106 to 113, above. Economies of Scale--Size of Organization. Economies of scale also can be realized from the size of the organization that owns or manages a nursing home. The proposals of all of the applicants except Cypress benefit from this principle, Palm Court to a lesser extent than the others, including in the area of quality assurance, nurse training and nurse recruiting. At the time of hearing, HCR operated nine nursing homes in Florida. HCR has approximately twelve nursing homes scheduled to begin construction in Florida within the next year. Nationwide, HCR operates more than 125 facilities containing approximately 16,000 beds. HCR has designed and built over 200 nursing homes and related health care facilities. HCR realizes substantial savings by using national contracts for the purchase of furniture, equipment, hardware and other operating supplies. Forum, as a national company, has the experience and purchasing power to cut operational costs through national purchase contracts and through economies and improvements experienced at the local level with a total retirement facility all on one campus. The Manor Care Florida Regional Office offers the services of a Regional Director, a Regional Nurse, a Nurse Recruiter, and a Comptroller to work with the corresponding departments of the Manor Care Florida nursing homes. FCP's long term plans are to develop homes in clusters, currently concentrating on the central west coast area of Florida. FCP has previously been granted certificates of need in Lee County and Polk County and has been recommended by the Department for a certificate of need in Hillsborough County. This cluster will operate under a unified local administration and share rehabilitative, medical, social, dietary and transportation personnel, enhancing economies of operation. CSI was formed in 1978 for the purpose of operating extended care facilities, including nursing homes and retirement centers. Since that time, the company has grown to its current operations of twenty-one (21) nursing homes, two (2) retirement centers and one (1) home for the aged located in seven states. Historically, much of this growth has occurred through the acquisition of existing facilities, although more recently the focus has shifted to the development of new facilities. Because CSI has established "national accounts" for the acquisition of movable equipment CSI can purchase nursing home equipment and furnishings and other operating supplies for HHL at reduced prices. (3) Patient Charges. The applicants propose the following room charges for semi-private rooms. Applicant Medicaid Medicare Private Pay HCR 60.94 76.00 75.00 FCP 60.00 65.00 80.00 Manor Care 1/ 69.37 ---- 72.57 HHL 66.30 109.33 2/ 72.76 Forum 67.18 80.67 79.50 Palm Court 77.00 100.00 77.00 Cypress 58.00 65.00 69.00 However, Cypress' charges are suspect; they probably are unrealistically low. Palm Court's charges also are suspect. It is difficult to understand from the evidence whether they are charges or Medicaid reimbursements. It also is difficult to tell if they are current or projected. In any event, they do not relate to the information in Palm Court's pro forma. As previously alluded to, patient charges do not necessarily proportionately reflect construction and development and operating efficiencies. They also are affected by programs and quality. BUILDING DESIGN AND ENERGY FEATURES. Patient Care and Safety. Overall, HCR's design is excellent. Functional elements are effectively inter-related, the building is designed to be open to landscaping, sunlight and court yards, and there is a wide range of amenities. Cypress' patient rooms are smaller than allowed under state requirments. The state minimum in Chapter 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code, is 80 net square feet per bed for multi-bed and 100 net square feet in a single room. Cypress' proposal only has approximately 65.58 gross square feet per bed. Cypress' building design also has rooms that are approximately 130 feet from the nurses' stations and clean utility and soiled utility rooms, 10 feet over the state maximum under Rule 10D-29.121(24), Florida Administrative Code. Forum's :4 floor plan also violates this standard. Rule 10D-29.121(6), Florida Administrative Code, requires a 20 foot clear view out room windows. Cypress' design also violates this standard. Manor Care's floorplan is the most compact one- story design. It has four compact wings off a central core. Forum proposes a two-story structure, creating a potential increased hazard for patients with reduced mobility. But DHRS rules provide for nursing homes of more than one floor, and required safety features, which Forum will provide, keep the potential to an insignificant minimum. FCP proposes a three-story facility with the nursing home on the third floor adjacent to the elevators connecting it to the first floor central core and amenities. FCP, too, adequately addresses DHRS safety concerns and actually could be more convenient to more nursing home patients than a one-story structure. Energy Conservation Features. All of the applicants propose to insulate their facilities for energy efficiency, some, e.q., HHL, somewhat better than others. Building design itself also affects energy consumption. Cypress' high exterior building surface area makes it a less energy-efficient design; Manor Care's compact design aces it a more energy-efficient design. FCP's three-story design also is a more energy-efficient design. Cypress' design incorporates only one water heater. This will produce line loss and lower energy efficiency, as well as potential total loss of hot water. (Cypress also has only one electrical plant.) Other Unique Design Features. Several unique features in FCP's room design helps "de- institutionalize" the facility and contributes to overall quality of care. Similarly, residents at FCP will be able to offer their guests refreshments from the kitchen at any time of the day or nights and children, spouses, and entire families will be encouraged to join residents for meals as often as they wish, assisting in the maintenance of ties with the community. Dining may be either communal or in the several lounge areas and private dining rooms. One of Cypress' unique design features is of the bizarre and morbid variety--a room designed to store deceased residents. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY. The short-term and long-term feasibility of the proposals of HCR, FCP, Manor Care, Forum and HHL was never seriously questioned and was easily proven. Not so with Palm Court and Cypress. Palm Court. The duty to defend the immediate and long term financial feasibility of Palm Court's project rested with Steve Jones. Mr. Jones, who was not involved in the preparation of the application, offered his opinion that the Palm Court 60-bed addition would be feasible in the immediate and long terms. In giving his opinion of the project's financial feasibility, Mr. Jones stated he believed the pro forma in years 1 and 2 relate back to the corresponding tables in the application; but acknowledged he performed no analysis of his own, but rather he took the information provided him at face value. The pro forma is one of the key components of an application, as literally the heart of the application ties directly or indirectly into developing the pro forma, including Tables 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 25, as well as the amortization schedule. It is a required component of the application. Section 381.494(4)(e), F.S. (1985). Mr. Jones was asked to render an opinion on the reasonableness of Tables 8, 10, 11 and 25, which he did. On cross examination, however, Mr. Jones acknowledged he did not evaluate existing staff at Palm Court to determine the reasonableness of the pro forma. He did not verify the projected management fee and, in fact, stated he didn't know if it was included as a line item under "administration and general" on the pro forma nor how the management fee was computed. Mr. Jones, who has never prepared all the financial information in a CON application, also admitted he didn't know what current nursing salaries were in Hillsborough County, or any other salaries for that matter. He further acknowledged that he could not testify that the application's hourly wage times the number of working hours in a year would give you the stated nursing salaries. In sum, Mr. Jones admitted his opinion of the project's feasibility was based solely on his review of Tables 8, 11, 20 and 25 and his firm's involvement in the preparation of Palm Court's two most recent cost reports and not on the pro forma filed with Palm Court's application. Mr. Jones' accounting firm, in preparing Palm Court's cost reports, does not conduct an audit or express any opinion relating to the reasonableness of the statement of revenues and expenses. Joseph Lennartz, an expert in financial feasibility analysis, gave persuasive testimony outlining the inconsistencies in Palm Court's application. Palm Court's total revenue projections appearing in Table 7 for years 1 and 2 do correspond to the daily room and board revenues appearing in the pro forma, yet none of the Table 7 revenue projections correspond to the projected charges on Table 8. Assuming the salaries on Table 11 do not include fringe benefits, all FTE's and salaries on Table 11 are not accounted for in the pro forma. The pro forma salaries are significantly lower than on Table 11: RNs ,- understated by $12,426 LPNs - understated by $30,518 CNAS -understated by $239,541 Social Worker - understated by $2,983 Dietary - understated by $3,009 Maintenance - understated by $10,165 Activities - understated by $4,486 Housekeeping - understated by $6,365 Laundry & Linen - understated by $6,498 Admin & General - understated by $2,560 Palm Court's salary information on Table 11 is in 1987 dollars and needs to be inflated forward at least two to three years. Palm Court's current average salaries exceeded the proposed salaries on Table 11--including the administrator's salary, proposed at an annual salary of just over $31,000 when it actually was over $50,000 in 1987. Based on Palm Court's answers to interrogatories, Palm Court's management fee is not accurately reflected in the pro forma and is $44,559 too low in year 2; the projected dietary expense is understated by $112,386 in year 2; the projected housekeeping expense is understated by $46,609 in year 2; the projected laundry expense is understated by $35,308 in year 2; and plant expenses are understated by $100,116 in year 2. The terms of debt financing appearing on Table 2 of Palm Court's application do not conform to the amortization table, causing the interest expense line item on the pro forma to be understated. Cypress. As previously alluded to, the reasonableness of Cypress' projected Medicaid and Medicare rates appearing on its Updated Table 8 has not been established by competent substantial evidence. The Cypress pro forma fails to make provision for interest expense, depreciation, and property tax expense. These omissions represent an understatement of expenses as follows: YEAR ONE YEAR TWO INTEREST $177,818 $176,186 DEPRECIATION $110,000 $100,000 PROPERTY TAXES 2,200 25,000 (at assessed value 75 percent of market) TOTAL $290,018 $301,186 When interest, depreciation, and property taxes are included in the Cypress pro forma, the result is a loss of $90,000 in year one and $80,000 in year two. Furthermore, from a cash flow perspective, Cypress will incur a cash loss of $2,037 in year one and a cash gain of just $6,342 in year two. If property taxes are based on an assessed value at 100 percent of fair market value, there would be a $2,000 cash loss even in year two. It is not unusual for a nursing home to experience a negative cash flow in its first year of operation due to its low occupancy. However, it is unusual for a nursing home to experience a negative cash flow, as the Cypress facility will, while operating at optimal occupancy (95 percent). Cypress' owner/investors are willing to proceed with the project because they expect to be able to use some of the approximately $90,000 per year tax loss in years one and two to offset personal income, resulting in a cash on cash return of approximately $23,000 or 5.4 percent. Cypress' Table 1, "source of funds" states that the applicant has $425,000 "in hand". In fact, Cypress does not have those funds in hand. They are in the hands of the Cypress owner/investors. So far they have contributed $90,000 to the venture and will have to contribute not only an additional $425,000 to fund the nursing home but also an unspecified larger sum to fund Cypress planned ACLF and other projects. The evidence suggests that at least $425,000 more of equity contribution would be required for the rest of the project. Cypress did not prove that its proposed facility is financially feasible, either in the immediate or long term. BALANCED CONSIDERATION. Giving a balanced consideration to all of the statutory and rule factors addressed in the preceding findings, it is found that there is a net need for 231 community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County, that the applications of HCR, FCP and Manor Care should be granted and that the other applications should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting the applications of HCR (CON Action No. 5000), FCP (CON Action No. 4993) and Manor Care (CON Action No. 5006) and denying the applications of Forum (CON Action No. 4999), HHL (CON Action No. 4978) Palm Court (CON Action No. 4987) and Cypress (CON Action No. 5004). RECOMMENDED this 14th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 14th day of November, 1988.
The Issue Should Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration, rate Petitioner, Capital Health Care Center's nursing home facility license "conditional" for the period March 9, through May 4, 2000? Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. In particular, has Petitioner violated the requirements of Tag F324 as determined in Respondent's periodic survey concluded on March 9, 2000? Is Tag F324 a "Class II" deficiency? Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes. In the event that Petitioner is shown to have violated Tag F324 and the Tag is found to be a Class II deficiency, the parties agree that Petitioner was subject to a "conditional" license from March 9, through April 10, 2000. Did the results of the Respondent's survey concluded on March 9, 2000, reveal violations of Tags F371 and/or F372, "Class III" deficiencies that were not corrected before April 10, 2000, the date upon which Respondent resurveyed Petitioner's nursing home facility? If the alleged violations of Tags F371 and/or F372 were proven as of the survey that concluded on March 9, 2000, and were not corrected by April 10, 2000, when the facility was resurveyed, the parties agree that Petitioner held a "conditional" license from April 10, 2000, until such time as the last of Tag F371 of Tag F372 deficiencies were corrected. Further, the parties agree that failing Petitioner's proof of the date upon which the Tag F371 and/or Tag F372 deficiencies as established were corrected, Petitioner's license was properly rated as a "conditional" license until May 4, 2000, the date upon which Respondent conducted a third survey in the series of surveys directed to the Petitioner and found no further violations?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner is a nursing home licensed by Respondent pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is located at 3333 Capital Medical Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32308. On March 6 through March 9, 2000, Respondent conducted a survey at Petitioner's facility. As a result of that survey, Respondent alleged that Petitioner was not in compliance with the requirements of Tag F203, Tag F324, Tag F371, and Tag F372. On April 10, 2000, Respondent conducted a revisit survey at Capital. As a result of that survey, Respondent determined that Petitioner had corrected the deficiencies alleged under Tag F203 and F324. Respondent alleged that Petitioner had failed to correct the deficiencies alleged under Tag F371 and Tag F372. On May 4, 2000, Respondent conducted another revisit survey at Capital and determined that all alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Tag F324 requires "the facility must ensure that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents." Respondent alleges that this requirement was not met during the March 6-9, 2000, survey, and that the deficiency had a scope and severity of "G" and constituted a Class II deficiency. Tag F371 requires "The facility must store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions." Respondent alleges that this requirement was not met during the March 6-9, 2000, and the April 10, 2000, surveys and that the deficiency had a scope and severity of "F" during the March survey, a scope and severity of "D" during the April survey, and constituted a Class III deficiency at both surveys. Tag F372 requires "The facility must dispose of garbage and refuse properly." Respondent alleges that this requirement was not met during March 6-9, 2000, surveys and that the deficiency had a scope and severity of "D" and constituted a Class III deficiency at both surveys. Tag F324 At times relevant to the inquiry Resident 21 has lived in Petitioner's nursing home. On February 16, 2000, Resident 21 left the nursing home and visited her sister at the sister's home. To prepare the resident for her outing, two CNAs got Resident 21 up from her bed in the nursing home and placed her in a wheelchair. A lifting hoist was not used for this transfer. On this morning the two CNAs did not use the mechanical lift, being unable to locate the lift device. Therefore they opted to manually lift Resident 21 from the bed to the wheelchair. A sheet was used to lift Resident 21 into her wheelchair. At the time Resident 21 was paraplegic. She had had a knee cap removed and that leg was stiff. When referring to the one leg as stiff, it describes the fact that the leg will not bend at the knee. On February 16, 2000, once in the wheelchair, Resident 21 was transported to her sister's house by van or bus. Resident 21 remained seated in her wheelchair for her visit with her sister. Resident 21 was transported from the sister's home back to the nursing home by van or bus, again remaining in the wheelchair. Resident 21 was taken in and out of the van or bus during the trips to and from her sister's home by use of a lift in the vehicle. On February 16, 2000, while visiting with her sister Resident 21 offered no complaint about pain or discomfort in her legs. When Resident 21 returned to her room following her visit with her sister, two CNAs transferred her from the wheelchair to her bed. The two persons who made this transfer were not the same persons as had placed Resident 21 in the wheelchair earlier in the day. At the moment there was no lift pad under Resident 21 to facilitate the transfer by using the mechanical lift. The lift device attaches to the pad under the upper thigh of a resident, and with the use of the hoist elevates the resident from the wheelchair to the bed or from the bed to the wheelchair. One of the CNAs determined to manually transfer Resident 21 from the wheelchair to the bed. This followed the request of Resident 21 to be placed in her bed. Before Resident 21 was lifted from the wheelchair to the bed she complained that her legs hurt. At the time that the CNAs moved Resident 21 from the wheelchair to the bed there was a fitted sheet under Resident 21. When Resident 21 was returned to her bed from the wheelchair, one CNA grasped Resident 21's upper torso under her arms, while the other CNA lifted Resident 21 by grasping her in the area behind her knees. On this occasion in returning Resident 21 to her bed, the arm of her wheelchair was taken off and the foot rest adjusted. During the transfer from the wheelchair to the bed and after the resident was placed in the bed she offered no complaint about her condition. The CNAs in Petitioner's nursing home are trained to use the pad with the hoist or to have two CNAs pick a person in Resident 21's condition up by the upper torso and legs in making a transfer from the wheelchair to the bed. In the event the pad is not available, under Petitioner's policy, the CNAs may make a manual lift. The CNA who normally worked with Resident 21 looked for the lifting pad before seeking the assistance of the other CNA to make a manual lift. Having not located the pad, she determined to seek the assistance of the other CNA to conduct the manual lift from the wheelchair to the bed. On February 17, 2000, Resident 21 complained of leg pain. This led to an X-ray being performed revealing a fracture to the right ankle. As revealed in the nurses' notes for Resident 21 in explaining the physical condition, Resident 21 refers to her foot being caught under the CNA's arm when the transfer was made from the wheelchair to the bed. With this in mind, and the description by Resident 21 in the nurses' notes that an accident had taken place at that time, it is inferred that the fracture occurred to the resident's right ankle when being lifted from the wheelchair to the bed upon the return from her visit with her sister. Notwithstanding the attempt by the CNAs to use an appropriate technique in the manual lift from the wheelchair to the bed, the resident's foot was caught under the CNA's arm and sometime during the process the ankle was fractured. Results of in-service counseling provided to the CNAs who manually lifted Resident 21 on February 16, 2000, reveal Petitioner's intent to rely upon the use of mechanical lifting devices in contrast to manual lifts as a policy matter. During the March 6-9, 2000 licensing survey conducted by Respondent at Petitioner's facility, a Tag F324 citation Class II deficiency, was noted in relation to non-compliance with the facility expectation that the preferred patient transfer technique would be to employ a mechanical assist, not a manual assist when lifting residents. As described, the circumstances were different for Resident 21. According to the summary of deficiencies in survey Form 2567 executed during the survey, the subsequent lift from the wheelchair to the bed eventuated in a fracture to Resident 21's lower extremity. The referenced deficiency for Tag F324 corresponds to 42 C.F.R. Section 43.25(h)(2). Tag F371 Tag F371 is in relation to 42 C.F.R. Section 43.35(h)(2). This provision requires the nursing home facility to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions. During the March 2000 survey conducted by Respondent at Petitioner's facility, it was noted on the survey Form 2567 that Tag F371 alleged deficiencies were discovered in the facility kitchen. On March 7, 2000, it is alleged that six dessert bowls and two plates were dirty with food residue on the surfaces of those items. Ms. Myra Flores was a survey team member. She is a public health nutrition consultant for Respondent. She holds a bachelor of science degree in food and nutrition, a master of public health and nutrition and is a doctoral candidate. She is a registered dietitian licensed in the State of Florida. She had undergone the Surveyor Minimum Qualifications Test allowing her to evaluate complaints of health care facilities within federal regulations. In her inspection in March 2000, Ms. Flores found dessert bowls and plates that were stored, indicating that they had already been washed. Nonetheless the items had food residue on their surfaces. From her perspective as a public health nutritionist, contamination of utensils in facilities that house residents who have compromised immune capacity is a concern. There is an issue with food-borne illnesses. It can be inferred that a nursing home is a place in which residents have compromised immune capacity. Ms. Ann McElreath was assigned by Respondent to re- survey Petitioner's facility. That re-survey was conducted on April 10, 2000. Ms. McElreath holds an A.S. degree in nursing and a bachelor of science degree in psychology. Her observations concerning the re-survey were recorded on a Form 2567 dated April 10, 2000. That form notes an alleged repeat Class III deficiency Tag F371 pertaining to observation of pans in a drain rack with food particles on them. According to the report, discussion was had with staff members in which it was stated that the pans were items waiting to be re-washed. Inspection of other pans identified to be cleaned and ready for use again revealed two out of four having food particles on the surface, according to the report. When McElreath inspected the facility kitchen on April 10, 2000, she entered the kitchen and was standing by the dish-washing area where a staff member at the facility had just completed "doing the dishes" and there were aluminum-type banking pans draining. Ms. McElreath inquired of the attendant if those pans had been finished, to which the employee replied "yes." Ms. McElreath picked up the pans and examined them and some had food particles on them. This was pointed out to the employee. Mr. Paul Kobary, Petitioner's nursing home administrator, was in the kitchen at that time. In reference to those pans he stated that those were pans that were going to be re-washed. After a moment's hesitation, the other employee at the facility agreed with Mr. Kobary's comment concerning the re-wash. Ms. McElreath asked that the unnamed employee identify items that were clean. That woman pointed to a rack. Ms. McElreath pulled four additional pans identified as being clean and found two of the four to have food particles attached. Tag F372 Under 42 C.F.R. §483.25(h)(3) is the reference to Tag F372. This provision requires the nursing home facility to dispose of garbage and refuse properly. As noted in Form 2567 for the March 200 survey, Petitioner was alleged to have violated Tag F372. During the March 2000 survey Ms. Flores observed facility practices in connection with disposing of refuse. She observed a garbage bin being transported from the facility kitchen to the dumpsters that serve the facility. The material being transported was not covered. There was trash inside the bin being removed from the facility and boxes were piled on top of the bin. Petitioner's employee took the boxes and placed those in one of the dumpsters. The dumpster in which the boxes were placed through a side opening was then closed. An untied plastic container with garbage inside was then removed from the bin used for transport and then placed through a door on the side of another dumpster. After which the dumpster where the untied container of garbage was located was left partially open in that the door providing access to the dumpster was not completely closed. At hearing Ms. Flores expressed the concern that by leaving the side door opened to the dumpster in which the garbage bag had been placed invited the harborage and the feeding of pest and varmints because that dumpster contained food refuse from the kitchen. The dumpster was located outside of the facility in the vicinity of the woods and grass making the discarded food available to those pests. Based upon the incident in which the dumpster had been left open following the disposal of the garbage bag, a Tag F372 incident was recorded on Form 2567 corresponding to a Class III deficiency. In response Petitioner committed to a plan of correction to be concluded by April 8, 2000, concerning the maintenance of refuse in closed containers. This refers to closed dumpsters. Since that survey Mr. Paul Kobary the nursing home administrator checks twice a day to see that the dumpsters are closed. Other staff members are assigned to check throughout the day to assure that the dumpsters are closed. In the re-survey conducted on April 10, 2000, another alleged Class III deficiency was cited under Tag F372. This citation was made by Ms. McElreath based upon the fact that one of the dumpsters behind the facility allowed liquid substances within the dumpsters to leak out the bottom. Ms. McElreath was concerned that the substance that had leaked out under the dumpster and in the immediate vicinity might have been picked up on the wheels of wheelchairs. The wheelchairs were off to the side being washed down by the staff. Ms. McElreath worried that once the wheelchairs were returned to the facility the unidentified liquid attached to the wheels would be introduced into the facility proper. The problem with the leaking dumpster was reported as an uncorrected Class III deficiency associated with the problems experienced with the dumpster with uncovered garbage described in the March 2000 survey. Nursing Home Scope and Severity Chart The parties are bound by the Nursing Home Scope and Severity Chart which characterizes the severity of the alleged deficiencies. Respondent's Exhibit 15. Under this scheme a severity of "G" represents actual harm but not immediate jeopardy. Alleged deficiencies with a severity of "D" and "F" represent a potential for more than minimal harm.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of facts and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered in which Respondent assigns Petitioner a conditional license for the period March 9 through May 4, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2000.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration found deficiencies at Cypress Manor sufficient to support issuance of a conditional license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Cypress Manor, is a nursing home in Fort Myers, Florida, licensed by and subject to regulation by AHCA pursuant to Part II, Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. AHCA is the state agency charged with conducting licensure surveys of nursing home facilities in Florida to ensure that nursing homes are in compliance with state regulations. AHCA also surveys nursing homes to ensure that they are in compliance with federal Medicare and Medicaid requirements. The surveys are usually conducted by a team consisting of nurses, dieticians, and social workers from the AHCA. Each survey lasts approximately three days, during which time the AHCA team tours the facility; reviews records; interviews staff, families and residents; and observes care of residents and medication administration. After surveying the facility, AHCA prepares a survey report which lists the deficiencies found at the facility. The survey report is then sent to the nursing home. Each alleged deficiency found by AHCA during a survey is identified by a “tag” number, which corresponds to the regulation AHCA claims to have violated. A federal scope and severity rating is assigned to each deficiency. AHCA conducted a relicensure survey of Cypress Manor in September 1996, and a follow-up survey in November 1996. At both surveys, AHCA tagged the deficiency denominated as Tag F241, and gave this tag a “Class III” designation. The regulation described under Tag F241 states that: The facility must promote care for residents in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances each resident’s dignity and respect in full recognition of his or her individuality. AHCA contends that this regulation was violated by the actions of the facility as described in the survey reports. Because these alleged deficiencies were found in both surveys, AHCA contends that the facility should be given a conditional license. A conditional license has a significant adverse effect on a nursing home. It must be posted in a public place and AHCA publicizes this information, in part through issuance of press releases. A conditional rating affects the ability of the facility to attract residents, and causes morale problems among staff and existing residents. The rating makes staff recruiting difficult. The September 1996 survey report has two numbered findings. However, no evidence was presented as to the first finding. Therefore, the only pertinent and remaining allegations with respect to this survey are those listed under the second finding. The September 1996 survey cited the following findings under the Tag 241: (1)three residents at Cypress Manor, Residents 11, 12, and 13, were observed wearing slipper socks with the names of deceased residents written on them; Resident 11’s shoes were too small; and (3) the slipper socks of Resident 12, were twisted so that the bottom of each slipper was on the top of her foot. The policy at Cypress Manor was, and had been for many years, to label clothing of residents upon admission, and to write residents' names on slipper socks in approximately 1/4 inch letters. However, when residents died their family members would often donate the clothing of those individuals to Cypress Manor to be used for other residents who had insufficient clothing of their own. For example, Cypress Manor used these donated clothes for incontinent residents who would needed changes of clothing, including slipper socks, several times a day. This practice had been in place during surveys conducted by the AHCA in prior years, but had never been cited by AHCA surveyors as a deficient practice. There is no indication that either the subject residents or their families objected to this practice. Moreover, with regard to the slipper socks with names written on them, the writing on the socks had faded to the point that they could not easily be read. Nothing in the regulation specifically addresses the standards for footwear and no evidence was provided by the AHCA with respect to generally accepted standards for footwear. Moreover, no evidence or testimony was presented that the practice of allowing residents to wear donated clothing or slippers constituted a failure to treat such residents with dignity and respect. With regard to the finding that Resident 11’s shoes were too small, there was no evidence to support this claim. Rather, Resident 11 had shoes brought in by her husband, but she regularly took them off and left them in various places throughout the facility. The third alleged violation involved Resident 12, the resident whose slipper socks were turned around. According to Cypress Manor staff who know this resident, she was capable of and did, in fact, propel herself in a wheelchair. As a result of Resident 12’s propelling herself in the wheelchair, the slipper socks often turned. The November 1996 survey report contains eight numbered findings, none of which relate to the footwear issues described in the September survey. No evidence was presented by the agency at hearing with respect to findings 1, 2, 3, 4, or 7. In finding number five, AHCA noted that a resident was seen on two consecutive days wearing the same pink flowered gown and pink sweater. Although this was cited as violating the resident's dignity and respect, the AHCA surveyor acknowledged that the resident's clothing was clean and appropriate. Furthermore, the AHCA surveyor never asked the resident if she liked the clothes that she was wearing. Nor did the surveyor attempt to determine the resident's clothing preference. Cypress Manor staff members familiar with this resident were aware that she had favorite clothes and often insisted on wearing the same items of clothing. The pink sweater worn by the resident on the two days she was observed by the surveyor was one of the resident's favorite garments. In finding number six, AHCA indicated that during a tour of the facility with the facility administrator, the surveyor and administrator entered the room of a resident. The finding further noted that while in the resident’s room, the administrator asked the resident to describe her medical condition to the surveyor. In the surveyor's opinion, the resident seemed "surprised” when asked by the administrator to describe her condition to the surveyor. The issue of requesting that residents describe or discuss their conditions with surveyors is not covered in the regulations. However, it is standard practice as part of surveys to ask residents to describe their condition to surveyors, and it is becoming more common for residents to speak directly to surveyors. The resident referred to in finding number six was a relatively young and assertive resident who had lived at Cypress Manor for several years and served as president of the facility's Residents' Council. Also, as a former employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, this resident was very familiar with the survey process. In fact, she would often comment to staff to "let those surveyors at me [sic]; I want to talk to them." This resident often spoke openly about her physical condition and, in the opinion of those who knew her well, would not have been offended by a request to describe her medical condition with AHCA surveyors. It was acknowledged by AHCA that dignity can vary depending on the individual, and that what might be considered undignified to one resident might not be undignified to another. While there are some areas that might be considered to violate the standard regarding the dignity of the patient, no general standards as to what constitutes such a violation was presented by AHCA. In finding number eight of the November 1996 survey report, AHCA stated that a resident in the dining room was given his meal, but did not receive eating utensils until approximately ten minutes later. The surveyor acknowledged that the resident did not attempt to eat the meal with his hands, but waited until the utensils were brought to him. At the time this occurred, there was a large number of residents in the dining room, all of whom were being served their meals. This incident appears to be an isolated and inadvertent oversight, and one that was immediately corrected. At the time of the relicensure survey of Cypress Manor, the facility had no Class I or Class II deficiencies; no Class III deficiencies not corrected within the time established by the agency; and was in substantial compliance with established criteria. It is the policy of the AHCA to classify all deficiencies as at least a Class III deficiency, even when, according to the federal evaluation, the facility would be in substantial compliance with the regulation at issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order issuing a standard rating to Cypress Manor, and rescinding the conditional rating and imposition of the $500 penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson, Esquire R. Davis Thomas, Jr., Qualified Representative Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street Suite 400 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Karel Baarslag Agency for Health Care Administration Regional Service Center 2295 Victoria Avenue Room 309 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Jerome Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact The Applicants And Their Applications Petitioner, Medical Personnel Pool of Southwest Florida, Inc. (Medical Personnel Pool), is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Medical Personnel Pool, Inc., an operating division of Personnel Pool of America, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of H & R Block, Inc. Personnel Pool of America, Inc., operates 215 home health agency offices in 42 states and in Canada, 145 of which are Medicare-certified. In Florida, Medical Personnel Pool, Inc., operates 27 offices, 5 of which are Medicare-certified. Medical Personnel Pool's corporate headquarters are in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Medical Personnel Pool has applied for a Certificate of Need for Medicare-certified home health services in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties in HRS District VIII. The services are proposed to be provided out of Personnel Pool's existing Fort Myers office which has been in operation over ten years. Medical Personnel Pool's existing operations out of Fort Myers are not Medicare-certified and do not serve Medicare patients. Medical Personnel Pool has represented in its application that it will commit 2% of its total visits to Medicaid patients and one hour of uncompensated visits to indigent patients for every 20 hours of visits to Medicare patients for which it is reimbursed. The indigent commitment would be recorded and accumulated until the commitment reaches the approximately 10 to 20 visits necessary to start and finish a case for an indigent patient. Medical Personnel Pool also represents that it will operate all of its home health services out of the same corporate entity out of which it operates Medicare-certified home health services. In this way, Medical Personnel Pool is committing to charge its Medicare-certified patients no more than it charges its private pay patients. Petitioner, DeSoto Memorial Hospital (DeSoto Memorial), is a private, not-for-profit acute care community hospital located in HRS District VIII in Arcadia, DeSoto County, Florida. DeSoto Memorial has provided health care services to DeSoto County since 1968. It is the only acute care general hospital located in DeSoto County. It provides services to patients regardless of ability to pay and commits in its application to provide 10% of its home health services to Medicaid patients and 8% to indigent patients. DeSoto Memorial has applied for a Certificate of Need to provide home health services in DeSoto County. Its proposed home health agency would be located at the existing hospital facility. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)1. (The need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan adopted pursuant to Title XV of the Public Health Service Act, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health.) 1985-87 State Health Plan. The 1985-87 State Health Plan states in part: "Policy makers are increasingly concerned about providers' willingness to serve Medicaid recipients and medically indigent Floridians." The State Health Plan references efforts by the Medicaid program since 1981 to increase Medicaid reimbursement for home health services and to increase medically indigent access to home health services. However, the State Health Plan concludes: "Rather than attempt to establish unrealistic performance expectations for private providers, the Legislature will either have to increase resources available to reimburse those providers for home health services to the indigent or provide support to the county health units." The State Health Plan also cites as an objective: "To assure that the number of home health agencies in each service area promote the greatest extent of competition consistent with reasonable economies of scale by 1987." It recommends: "Develop a need methodology based on historic cost data for Florida home health agencies." However, the evidence in this case was that additional Medicare-certified home health agencies will not significantly contribute to price competition. To the contrary, the evidence was that additional Medicare-certified home health agencies actually will cause a relatively small increase in the cost of Medicare-certified home health services. This cost increase will be small because home health services are not capital intensive, and duplication of services and under-utilization of home health services will not require as much of a price increase to cover costs as would duplication of services and under-utilization of capital intensive hospital services.(Only 2% of a home health agency's costs are capital costs while 15 to 20% of a hospital's costs are capital costs.) In addition, the price for Medicare- certified home health services is subject to a cap which most home health services already are close to. Additional numbers of home health agencies would foster competition in the quality of services and responsiveness of services to the needs and wants of the patients in an area. Additional Medicare-certified home health agencies that serve a significant percentage of Medicaid recipients and medically-indigent patients would have a competitive advantage in getting referrals over Medicare-certified home health agencies that do not serve Medicaid recipients and the medically-indigent. To compete, existing Medicare-certified home health agencies probably would initiate comparable service for Medicaid and medically-indigent patients. This desirable effect of competition would help alleviate the policy makers' concerns referred to in Finding Of Fact 7 above. But see Conclusion Of Law 1 below. (ii.) District VIII Local Health Council Health Plan. The 1985 District VIII Local Health Council Health Plan adopted August 21, 1985 states: "Home health care services are generally available to all residents within District Eight." However, this conclusion drawn by the local health council is based upon an application of HRS proposed rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code. This rule has been held invalid. See, Final Order, Home Health Services and Staffing Association, et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 85-1377R, March 12, 1986. In addition, based upon the evidence in this case, the proposed rule does not accurately assess the need for the home health agencies proposed by Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial. See Findings Of Fact 27 through 70 below. The District Health Plan also establishes sub- districts. Pertinent to this case, Charlotte County, Collier County, DeSoto County and Lee County are established as separate sub-districts. Sarasota County also is established as a separate sub-district. Glades and Hendry counties are combined as the last sub-district. The District Health Plan's sub-district designations were established on the basis that they: (1) have a geographic size which meets reasonable travel distances and travel times; (2) have a population size adequate to support at least one agency; (3) are geo-politically consistent; and (4) have available population, socio-economic and health statistics to document use rates and projections. The District Health Plan also recommends: "Sub- districts without a home health agency office in one or more of its principle [sic] communities should be identified as a priority area for the expansion or new establishment of a home health agency." In addition, the District Health Plan establishes the policy: "Continuity of patient care should be assured through the establishment of formal coordination arrangements between home health agencies, and physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, and community social service agencies and organizations." Finally, as another policy, the District Health Plan states: "Home health care should be accessible to all persons in need, regardless of ability to pay or source of payment." But see Conclusions Of Law 1 below. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)2. (The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant.) There are 19 existing licensed Medicare-certified home health agencies (sometimes referred to simply as home health agencies) with home offices in District VIII. This number excludes Home Care Services of Hendry County which ceased operations as of March 22, 1985. In addition, one home health agency in District VIII has been approved, but is not yet licensed and operating. (Homecare of Glades and Hendry Counties, approved in a later batching cycle is now on administrative appeal in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 85-4308, should not be counted as available for purposes of assessing the need for the Medical Personnel Pool or DeSoto Memorial proposals.) In addition, three home health agencies with home offices outside District VIII in Manatee County hold licenses enabling them to operate within District VIII. But one of them Visiting Nurses Association of Hardee County ceased operations in District VIII (DeSoto County) approximately six months before the final hearing in this case. These home health agencies are referred to in HRS proposed rule 10-5.11(14) as multi-district agencies. They also are commonly referred to as cross-over agencies. The total number of available home health agencies in District VIII is 22. This total excludes Home Care Services of Hendry County, Visiting Nurses Association of Hardee County and Home Care of Glades and Hendry Counties. Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial did not prove that any other of the licensed and approved home health agencies in District VIII should be excluded from the total number of available home health agencies. Five of the 22 available home health agencies are in Lee County. Four of the available home health agencies are in Charlotte County. Three additional home health agencies have home offices in other counties, but are licensed to operate in Charlotte County. Three of the 22 available home health agencies have home offices in Collier County. In addition, three have home offices in other counties, but are licensed to operate in Collier County. One of the 22 available home health agencies has a home office in Arcadia in DeSoto County. In addition, another home health agency is licensed to operate in DeSoto County, but has its home office in another county. Neither Medical Personnel Pool nor DeSoto Memorial proved or disproved the quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness or extent of utilization of the 22 available home health agencies in District VIII. The accessibility and adequacy of the 22 available home health agencies in District VIII actually is addressed by an analysis of the need for the Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial proposals. See Findings Of Fact 27 through 70 below. Analysis of Need for the Proposed Home Health Agencies. (i) HRS proposed Rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code. The basic approach of the invalid HRS proposed Rule 10- 5.11(14) was to apply historical use rates for specific age cohorts of the population to the projected population within those age cohorts in a given district in a future year, or "planning horizon." This widely-accepted type of approach to projecting need is referred to by health planners as a "utilization-based methodology." There were five steps included in the methodology of the proposed rule. The first step was to project the number of elderly Medicare recipients who would utilize home health services. This number is denoted by the letter "A". To calculate "A", one multiplied the projected population aged 65 and over in the district by a constant which was intended to represent a percentage of the elderly who have historically used home health services. The proposed rule included a number, or a constant, to be used for this purpose. The value of the constant presented in the proposed rule, .0496, purportedly represented the percentage of elderly Medicare enrollees who actually used home health services in Florida in 1982. This percentage for'.. 1982 was misstated in the proposed rule and should have been 5.06% (.0506), rather than 4.96% (.0496). HRS has now acknowledged this error and agrees that .0506 (5.06%) was the appropriate 1982 age 65-and-over utilization rate. According to the proposed rule, then, to calculate the number of elderly people projected to need home health services, the population aged 65 years-and-over two years in the future was to be multiplied by the 1982 use rate for this group, .0506 (5.06%). The second step in the methodology of the proposed rule was to project the number of disabled under-65 Medicare recipients ("B") who will utilize home health services. To calculate "B", one first multiplied the projected district population two years in the future under the age of 65 by the percentage of that population estimated to be disabled. In the proposed rule, HRS used constants for both the proportion of the population under 65 years of age which was projected to be disabled (.01755), and the portion of those disabled persons who would be expected to use home health services (.0297). As in the first step, these values were taken from 1982 Medicare utilization data for Florida. Thus, in the second step of the formula under the proposed rule, the number of under-65 disabled persons who were projected to need Medicare home health services equaled the number of persons in the district under the age of 65 two years in the future, multiplied by .017555, the result of which was then multiplied by .0297. The third step of the proposed rule's formula projected the number of Medicare home health visits (as opposed to persons) needed in the district two years in the future, by multiplying the total projected number of people needing Medicare home health services by the historical number of average visits per person for Florida in 1982. The average number of visits per person in 1982 was 31.5, also derived from 1982 Medicare data. The total number of home health visits was projected as being equal to "A" plus "B", or the sum of the first two steps, multiplied by 31.5. The fourth step of the formula of the proposed rule calculated the number of needed Medicare home health agencies, given the number of projected Medicare visits calculated in the third step. The gross number of Medicare agencies projected as needed in the planning horizon ("G") was calculated by dividing the number of projected total Medicare visits per agency per year ("S"). "S" was determined through another calculation, and varied, depending upon the total number of projected Medicare visits in the district and the calendar year in which a CON application was filed. "S" was obtained by adding to a presumed base agency size of 9,000 Medicare visits per year, an additional adjusted number of visits (the so-called "additive factor"). This adjusted number of visits equaled the total projected number of Medicare visits divided by 9,000, then multiplied by what was called the "C" factor. The "C" factor varied with the calendar year in which an application was filed. For applications which were filed in 1984 and 1985, "C" was equal to 270. For applications to be filed in 1986 and 1987, "C" was equal to 225. For applications to be filed in 1988 or later, "C" was equal to 180. If the calculation of "S" resulted in a number which was larger than 21,000, then "S" was to be assigned a value equal to 21,000. This meant that the divisor "S", or the number of visits an agency was expected to provide, would range from 9,000 visits to 21,000 visits. Thus, districts would have different values for "S", and even within a district, the value of "S" would vary from year to year. The fifth and last step of the formula was to calculate the net number of Medicare-certified home health agencies needed ("N"). "N" was calculated by subtracting the number of "licensed and approved" agencies currently located in a district from the gross number of agencies projected as needed in the planning horizon, "G". The number of "licensed and approved" agencies, denoted as "L" in the proposed rule, included a count of all licensed agencies located within a district and all approved agencies that are not yet licensed. As of the date of the final hearing in this case, HRS was applying proposed Rule 10-5.11(14) to its review of home health agency CON applications, as though the rule were in full force and effect, with several significant modifications to the express language of the proposed rule. First, as noted above, HRS had agreed that its use of the value .0496 in Factor "A" of the published proposed rule was the result of an erroneous reading of the published 1982 Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA") home health utilization rates for over-65 persons in Florida, and that the correct 1982 value was .0506. Second, HRS had abandoned the requirement of the published version of the proposed rule that decimal values of "G" always be rounded down to the next lower whole number and had modified its application of the proposed rule to conventional rounding of value "G", i.e., decimal values of .5 or greater were rounded up to the next larger whole number, and decimal values less than .5 were rounded down to the next lower whole number. In applying proposed Rule 10-5.11(14) in its review of Medical Personnel Pool's CON application, HRS included in the inventory of licensed and approved agencies ("L") three (3) agencies located in other districts, which although licensed to serve individual counties in District VIII, were not licensed to serve any of the counties in Medical Personnel Pool's proposed service area, and which had not yet applied for nor been approved to set up new agencies or sub-units in District XI under the now defunct paragraph (e) of the former proposed rule. The "additive factor" is the term which has been used to refer to everything appearing to the right of the first appearance of the figure 9,000 in the definition of the divisor, factor "S," of the methodology found in paragraph (a) of the former proposed rule. As previously discussed, the purpose of the divisor in the formula of paragraph (a) of the former proposed rule was to convert the expected number of Medicare visits needed in the appropriate planning horizon to a gross number of Medicare home health agencies needed. In order to accomplish this, an agency size of some sort had to be used, defined by number of visits, for the denominator in the formula. One intent of the value in the denominator in the methodology of the former proposed rule was to represent an optimal minimum efficient economic operating size. The premise for this concept of optimal minimum efficient economic operating size was a health planning concept that below a certain minimum range of agency size in number of visits, fixed start-up costs result in a relatively high cost per visit ratio for new small agencies. All of the available data indicates that there is a range of "economies of scale" in costs per visit for new start-up home health agencies, breaking somewhere between 6,000 and 9,000 or 10,000 visits. Once this breaking point is reached, the relatively small level of fixed costs in home health level off, and the data do not show any further significant points of economies of scale. Specifically, a distinction must be drawn between the theoretical economies of scale argument and what the actual available reported data show to be the experience of the home health industry in Florida. Using a sample of over 85% of the home health agencies in Florida (all of the agencies cost reporting through the State's Medicare fiscal intermediary), and plotting their actual reported 1984 number of visits and cost per visit, it is clearly seen that there is no predictable relationship between actual reported agency size in visits and actual reported cost per visit. A statistical regression analysis performed on this same data for three years experience, i.e., 1982, 1983 and 1984, confirms this absolute lack of any significant relationship between reported agency size and reported agency cost per visit in Florida's existing Medicare home health agencies. For example, in the most recent reporting year, the largest agency in Hillsborough County also reported the highest cost per visit in Hillsborough County. Further, whatever argument these may be as to economies of scale and start-up costs for a new home health agency, the undisputed evidence is that an existing, fully-staffed, fully- equipped home health agency has all of its necessary patient referral sources in place and functioning. Thus, the economies of scale argument relating to start-up costs of new home health agencies is not applicable to existing agencies. Nevertheless, to accomplish the goals of translating gross number of visits projected as needed in the appropriate planning horizon to gross number of Medicare agencies needed, HRS proposed in the methodology of its former proposed rule to use a denominator of 9,000 visits, inflated by the so-called additive factor in two ways, i.e., (1) by incorporating an additive factor of total Medicare visits in the district, divided by 9,000, and (2) by then multiplying this ratio by the so-called "C" factor, which consists of three different arbitrary values, 3% of 9,000 (270), 2 1/2% of 9,000 (225), and 2% of 9,000 (180), depending on the filing year of the application being reviewed. This entire value was then added to 9,000 visits. The effect of including "MV" divided by 9,000 in the additive factor was to yield a final value for this factor, with or without the "C" multiplier, which varied in size from one HRS Local Health Planning District to any other. This occurred because "MV" would differ from district to district, driven as it was by district population in the given planning horizon. For the same reason, this ratio within the additive factor would also vary from year to year. Absolutely no rationale or purpose has been offered for thus varying the "target agency size" from district to district and year to year. This result of including MV/9,000 in the additive factor is, therefore, totally arbitrary in its own right. As previously noted, the "additive factor" contained its own internal additive factor; a multiplier referred to as "C". The arbitrary values which were substituted for "C" are set forth above. In its first value, "C" caused the methodology of the proposed rule to yield a statewide average district net need under the formula as proposed of only two (2) new agencies, the closest whole value possible to the existing number of Medicare home health agencies as of the date of the proposed rule's publication. The only evidence tending to explain the derivation of "C" is testimony that HRS files contained several computer "runs," each with a different value and showing different net need results, and that the value chosen by HRS for the first two years (270) yielded the overall statewide average district net need which closest approximated the status quo. No evidence was introduced to show how either the values attributed to "C" or the existence of "C" itself were empirically justified or served a valid health planning purpose. Proposed Rule 10-5.11(14) provided for annual updating of the projected population data to be used therein, but froze as "standards" the 1982 Medicare Florida home health agency utilization rates which appeared in factors "A," "B," and "C". More recent use rates, i.e., 1983 values for each of these use rates, are, and have been, readily available. This data, published by HCFA, is released at least annually, and is readily available to anyone requesting it, with a minimum of effort. It is unreasonable not to update these utilization rates to the most recent available data. In addition, there are several specific health planning reasons why refusal to consider the readily available updated 1983 use rates would be unreasonable in this case. First, since at least 1978, when such records became available, HCFA data has shown a steady and consistent trend of increases in all three of these utilization rates, both in Florida and in the nation as a whole. There are several reasons explaining this trend: there have been ever-increasing pressures in the health care delivery system to "deinstitutionalize" patient services, with an emphasis on outpatient and home health services a major part of the reason for this emphasis is budgetary restraints home health services are far less expensive than comparable inpatient services; there has been an increase in the need for home health services for younger populations for things such as post-surgical care; there have been innovative technological developments in home health care, including the so-called hi-tech services which in the recent past, if available at all, were only available in inpatient settings; there has been a demonstrated increased awareness of home health services and their advantages, both in the physician community and among the public at large; and there have also been significant changes and expansions in Medicare reimbursement of home health services which have encouraged increased utilization. The 1982 Medicare utilization reporting period pre- dated the October, 1983, implementation of the Medicare prospective payment system for hospitals, which has been identified as a specific cause of increased home utilization. Furthermore, most of the previously discussed innovative hi-tech home health services were not in use in home health in 1982, and that reporting year's data ignores their effect on home health utilization. The proposed rule, in paragraph (e), provided that home health agencies shall be restricted to providing services within a single departmental district. The proposed rule further provided that any multi-district or cross-over agency should be included in the inventory of the home health agencies in the district into which it crosses over. As reflected in Findings Of Fact 19 and 20 above, multi-district or cross-over agencies should logically be taken into account in determining the adequacy of existing home health agencies to serve the needs of a particular district. Multi-district or cross-over agencies are licensed to operate in some of District VIII and must be presumed to be operating in parts of the district absent a showing that they are not. In this case, the evidence was that one of the three multi-district or cross-over agencies Visiting Nurses Association of Hardee County is not operating in District VIII, but there was no similar evidence as to the other two multi- district or cross-over agencies. Those two should be counted in District VIII's inventory of home health agencies. HRS did not prove by the evidence in this case that proposed Rule 10-5.11(14), if proposed as non-rule policy, is reasonable. (ii.) Quantification of Need. As mentioned, the utilization method of quantifying need for Medicare-certified home health agencies is a reasonable approach. As also mentioned, it is most reasonable and accurate to use the most recent available utilization data for 1983 in quantifying need for Medicare-certified home health agencies. According to the 1983 data: (1) 5.78% of elderly Medicare enrollees receive home health services; (2) 0.058% of the population under 65 receive Medicare home health services and (3) recipients average 33.3 home health visits each. The next element of quantifying need is determining the planning horizon on which the need is to be projected. The evidence in this case was persuasive that it is reasonable to project need two years into the future from the date of the final hearing. The date of the final hearing itself would roughly coincide with a planning horizon two years from the date the applications were deemed complete. This would leave no lead time for start-up. While the evidence was that start-up time is relatively minimal in home health, it cannot be assumed that start-up would begin at or near the time of the final hearing. The Recommended Order has just now been entered, and an additional period of time can be expected to elapse before final agency action. Finally, placing the planning horizon two years from the date of the final hearing is consistent with past agency policy before the decision in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 10 FLW 1983 (Fla. 1st DCA, August 20, 1985); clarified on rehearing, 11 FLW 437 (February 14, 1986). Using the 1983 utilization data, the gross number of visits projected for 1988 can be obtained by multiplying the projected district population of persons 65 years of age or older times the 5.78% utilization rate and adding that number to the product of the projected district population of persons aged O to times 0.058%, the percentage of persons 0 to 64 estimated to be using Medicare home health services. Using this method, the total number of visits projected in District VIII for 1988 is 449,483. Having determined the estimated number of total visits, this number must then be translated into number of home health agencies by dividing the total by a number of visits per home health agency. Because of economies of scale, this number must be at least in the range between 6,000 and 10,000 visits per agency. The evidence is that, beyond the minimum size for a home health agency, there is no causal and predictable relationship between number of visits per agency and the cost; efficiency of a home health agency. Some of the evidence has suggested that total number of visits in a district should therefore be divided by the minimum agency size. But this would change the analysis from the analysis of the need for an additional home health agency to an analysis whether the market could bear an additional home health agency. Whether certificate of need regulation in the area of home health makes sense on the evidence of this case, the rationality of the law in effect must be presumed. Under the law in effect, the analysis must measure the need for an additional home health agency, not the ability of the market to absorb an additional home health agency. See Conclusion Of Law 3 below. Throughout the state, the number of Medicare visits per home health agency varies broadly from the minimum size agency to almost 80,000 visits per year. In District VIII, Redi-care operated in 1984 at 34,641 visits, while another agency in the district operated at only approximately a tenth of those visits. The District VIII average in 1984 was 19,206 per year. Since there are no apparent economies of scale above six to ten thousand visits per year, there is no general optimum size for a home health agency. The volume at which a home health agency can efficiently operate is instead a function of demographics. The size of a home health agency will vary in relationship to the size and composition of the population within reach of the agency and the number of other agencies actively competing for the same market. For this reason, the most appropriate available number to use as the visits per agency per year for planning purposes is the number of visits per year agencies are now making. The only evidence of this nature in the record is the average size of home health agencies in District VIII in 198419,206 visits per year or, approximately, 19,000 visits per year. 449,483 visits divided by 19,000 visits per year results in 23.7 or, rounding, 24 Medicare-certified home health agencies needed in District VIII. As previously discussed, there are for planning purposes 22 licensed and approved Medicare-certified home health agencies in District VIII, resulting in a net need in District VIII in 1988 for 24 minus 22, or 2 Medicare-certified home health agencies. However, the evidence in this case is that Medicare- certified home health agencies are limited by federal regulations and practical considerations to a range of approximately 50 miles and by HRS to the counties of their licensure. (HRS proposed Rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code, would have expanded licensees' authority to operate throughout the district, but it has been held invalid and is not in effect.) Therefore, it is not rational for planning purposes to end a home health need analysis at the district level. If, for example, the two agencies needed in District VIII are needed in the southern part of the district, it would serve no health planning purpose to authorize two additional agencies in the northern part of the district. There are two ways of analyzing home health need on a sub-district basis: First, using the utilization method, and secondly, allocating district-wide need by percentage of the elderly population in each sub-district. Under the utilization method, Lee County is projected to require 147,686 Medicare home health visits in 1988. Dividing the total visits by the district average-sized agency (their being no evidence of the average size per agency on a county basis), Lee County would need 7.8 or, rounding, 8 Medicare- certified home health agencies. Since Lee County only has five existing or approved Medicare-certified home health agencies at this time, it has a net need of three agencies. On the other hand, using the same analysis, the Charlotte, Collier and DeSoto Counties have no need projected for 1988. For Charlotte County: 64,735 visits divided by 19,000 per agency per year equals 3.4 or, roughly, three Medicare-certified agencies needed in 1988. Charlotte County now has four Medicare- certified home health agencies with home offices in Charlotte County, and three others are licensed to operate in Charlotte County. Collier County is projected to have 57,909 visits divided by 19,000 visits per agency per year equals a need for three agencies projected for 1988. Collier now has three agencies based in Collier County and three others licensed to operate there. In DeSoto County, only 7,659 visits are projected for 1988. This is less than the average-sized agency in District VIII, but it is assumed that there is a need for one home health agency in DeSoto County in 1988. There is one based in DeSoto County now, and another is authorized to operate there. Multiplying the total district-wide need of 22 Medicare-certified home health agencies projected for 1988 by the pertinent county's percentage of the elderly population of District VIII results in the following allocation: Lee County 32.785% x 22 = 7.2 Collier County 12.77% x 22 = 2.8 Charlotte County 14.54% x 22 = 3.2 DeSoto County 1.67% x 22 = .4 As a result of this sub-district analysis, it becomes apparent that there is a need for at least two additional Medicare-certified home health agencies in Lee County, but there is no quantifiable need elsewhere in District VIII projected for 1988. (iii.) Other Need Considerations. Since 1978, utilization of home health services in Florida has consistently increased in all categories for which utilization rates are kept the number of persons over the age of using home health services, the number and percent of disabled persons under the age of 65 using home health services, and the average number of visits provided per patient per spell of illness. In recent years, there also have been significant innovations and reimbursement changes in health care, both in home health and elsewhere in the health care industry, which have significantly increased the utilization of home health services. In October, 1983, hospitals came under the new Medicare prospective payment system whereby they no longer are reimbursed for services to Medicare patients on a reported cost basis, but rather are reimbursed on a fixed-fee-for-service basis, known as Diagnostic Related Groupings, or "DRGs". Hospitals are now reimbursed a fixed amount for each defined DRG service or procedure, regardless of the costs incurred by the hospitals in delivering that service. The effect of this new reimbursement methodology has been to encourage hospitals to find ways to deliver services at lower costs, and thus maximize reimbursement. One obvious way to accomplish this is to shorten the length of the patient's stay in the hospital. Another is to defer several services, previously performed in an inpatient setting, to home health providers for provision in the patient's home, or on an outpatient basis with subsequent follow-up care in the patient's home. In either event, the experience of the industry has been that since the implementation of DRGs, many patients are being discharged by hospitals sooner, in a sicker or more acute condition, and in greater need of home health services. At the same time, the industry has experienced the recent development of several so-called hi-tech home health services more advanced treatment and care procedures now being widely provided in the home, which a very short time ago were only provided in inpatient settings. These services include such procedures as chemotherapy, hyper-alimentation, and various other forms of indirect tube feeding. In addition, the industry has seen the development of new modernized equipment which has enabled many of these and other advanced procedures to be provided more inexpensively in the home. Complicating matters further, Florida's nursing homes have, for some time now, been operating at very full levels. Often the physician is left with only two choices - very expensive hospitalization or home health care. Some of these other need considerations already have been taken into account in the quantification of need just analyzed. The analysis does not, however, take into account continued increases in utilization after 1983 which, while not exactly speculative, are not certain and are not quantifiable. DeSoto Memorial's proposal for a hospital-based home health agency affords some advantages in enabling DeSoto Memorial to utilize currently under-utilized hospital facilities and services. It also increases the likelihood that patients will benefit from better continuity of care. However, the evidence did not prove or disprove the extent of continuity of care which can now be achieved without the DeSoto Memorial proposal as a result of efforts to coordinate care of patients among the hospital, the existing home health agencies and the physicians. In other words, while continuity of care using existing home health providers may take more effort, there is no evidence that it cannot be provided. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)3. (The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care.) The parties have stipulated to the ability of both Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial to provide quality care. Both applicants have the ability to provide socalled "hi-tech" home health services such as chemotherapy and indirect tube feeding. As previously mentioned, the DeSoto Memorial proposal will facilitate continuity of care. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)8. (The availability of resources, including health manpower, management of personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operation; the effects the project will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in the service district the extent to which the services will be accessible to schools for health professions in the service district for training purposes if such services are available in a limited number of facilities the availability of alternative uses of such resources for the provision of other health services and the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district.) Both Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial have available the resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures necessary to accomplish and operate the project. There was no evidence of the effects of either project on clinical needs of health professional training programs. There was no evidence that the services proposed by either Medical Personnel Pool or DeSoto Memorial will be available to schools for health professions in the service district for training purposes, or that such services are available in a limited number of facilities. As proposed home health agencies, both the Medical Personnel Pool and the DeSoto Memorial applications will use resources largely only to extent necessary. Capital investment is relatively minimal, and nurses and other personnel providing home health services to patients can be hired on an hourly basis as needed. To the extent not needed, those resources would be available for the provision of other health services that might be needed. The DeSoto Memorial proposal for a hospital-based home health agency would be particularly capable of using such resources for alternative uses. The Medicare-certified home health services proposed by both Medical Personnel Pool and DeSoto Memorial will be accessible to all residents of the service district within approximately 50 miles of the proposed agencies. As previously mentioned, there is a geographic limit to the economic delivery of home health services from any one agency. However, except for Lee County, all residents of District VIII will have access to Medicare-certified home health services without either of the proposals. There is a demonstrated lack of access to Medicaid reimbursable home health services and to home health services for the indigent. However, those services are not the subject of this proceeding. See Conclusions Of Law 1. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)9. (The immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal.) The parties have stipulated to the immediate and long- term financial feasibility of both the Medical Personnel Pool and the DeSoto Memorial proposal. Criterion Section 381.494(6)(c)12. (The probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of health services, which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness.) As previously mentioned, additional competition in Medicare-certified home health services probably would tend to improve the quality of the services provided, give providers incentive to meet the needs and desires of the patients in the service area and foster innovations in the home health area. As to price competition, there was no evidence that competition in Medicare-certified home health services will have any positive effect on the cost of home health services in the service district. Actually, the evidence was that additional home health agencies would be likely to increase slightly the charges for home health services. These increases would be subject to the Medicare cap which most agencies' charges already are approaching. I. Balanced Consideration of the Criteria. Balancing all the criteria that have been considered as applicable in light of the parties' stipulations, it is found that there is need and sufficient justification to grant the Medical Personnel Pool application, but only as to Lee County. There is no need for or sufficient justification to authorize Medical Personnel Pool to operate in Charlotte or Collier Counties or to grant the DeSoto Memorial application. (If need for Medicare-certified home health agencies could be based upon the needs of Medicaid and indigent patients, the evidence would support the need for both proposals as applied for.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a final order: (a) granting the application of Petitioner, Personnel Pool of Southwest Florida, Inc., for a certificate of need for Medicare home health services but only for Lee County and only on the conditions (1) that Personnel Pool provide 2% of its total visits to Medicaid patients and one hour of uncompensated visits to indigent patients for every 20 hours of visits to Medicare patients for which it is reimbursed and (2) that it will operate all of its home health services out of the same corporate entity out of which it operates Medicare-certified home health services: (b) denying the Personnel Pool application as to Collier and Charlotte counties; and (c) denying the application of Petitioner, DeSoto Memorial Hospital. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of May, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Defendant came on duty at Ambrosia Nursing Home at 9:00 a.m. on January 30, 1976, and was scheduled to be relieved at 3:00 p.m. During the day Defendant began showing signs of an intestinal disorder evidenced by diarrhea and vomiting. The nurse scheduled to relieve Defendant in the afternoon did not appear for duty and, despite her illness, Defendant volunteered to remain on duty for the next shift. She did advise the Director of Nursing that she was ill and would like to leave earlier than the schedule end of the shift at 11:00 p.m. The Director of Nursing advised her that she could leave at 9:00 p.m. if everything was normal. By 7:30 p.m. Defendant had checked the patients and found all were in bed and conditions normal, but her intestinal problems had not lessened. At that time she left the nursing home. The owner of the nursing home is a registered nurse and at the time occupied a room at the home. Defendant did not notify the owner that she was leaving because frequently the owner would not respond to a knock on her door. Since she had permission from the Director of Nursing to leave early, four capable aides were on duty and she was ill, Defendant departed the nursing home. No evidence was presented that the owner had been notified that Defendant had been granted permission to leave early and the inference was that she had not been so notified. The present Director of Nursing, a former Director of Nursing, and the Nursing Home, Administrator testified on behalf the Defendant. Defendant is an excellent nurse who is well liked by the patients and all members of the staff. She has always been extremely cooperative and a big asset to the nursing home. The nursing home very strongly desires that Defendant remain an employee at the home in her present position. Both directors of nursing would be well pleased to have Defendant on their services and would employ her instantly if the opportunity arose. Defendant has been licensed for nearly 24 years and this is the first time she has ever had as much as an oral admonition from a supervisor.
