Findings Of Fact General On October 15, 1986 Plantation General Hospital (Plantation) filed an application to establish adult and pediatric open heart surgery programs and a pediatric cardiac catheterization program. On October 16, 1986 North Broward Medical Center filed an application to establish an open heart surgery program. Both applications were denied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for reasons stated in its state agency action report issued on February 27, 1986. Both North Broward Medical Center and Plantation sought formal proceedings on their applications. North Ridge General Hospital, Memorial Hospital, Holy Cross Hospital and Florida Medical Center intervened in the proceedings. North Broward Medical Center updated its application on September 1, 1986. Plantation General Hospital updated its application on September 29, 1986, and deleted the pediatric open heart and pediatric cardiac catherization portions of the application. The Parties North Broward Medical Center (North Broward) is a 419-bed acute care hospital in Pompano Beach owned by the North Broward Hospital District (District), a special taxing district created by the Legislature to provide hospital services to residents of the northern two-thirds of Broward County. The District operates a multi-hospital system. The other hospitals, are Broward General Medical Center (Broward General), a 715-bed acute care hospital in east central Broward County, Imperial Point Medical Center, a 200-bed acute care hospital, and Coral Springs Medical Center, a 200-bed acute care hospital which opened in early 1987. The District has a single medical staff for all four hospitals. North Broward offers many cardiac services, including cardiac catheterization and some cardiac surgery procedures. Its catheterization lab opened in January, 1986. The lab will perform between 350 and 400 catheterizations during its first year. Broward General, the largest of the District hospitals, has a full cardiology program including a catheterization lab in which not only diagnostic catheterizations are performed, but also therapeutic catheterizations, (including balloon angioplasties) and has an open heart surgery program. It is not a party to this case. Plantation is a 264-bed full service general medical surgical hospital in Plantation, Florida. It offers many cardiac services, including diagnostic cardiac catheterization. It began its catheterization services in April, 1985 and in the first eight months performed 300 catheterizations. Approximately 500 catheterizations were performed its first year. South Broward Hospital District is the special taxing district created to provide hospital services to residents of the southern one-third of Broward County. It owns a single hospital, Memorial Hospital. Memorial is a 737-bed tertiary care hospital. It began operating an open heart surgery program in 1983 and provides a complete range of cardiac services, excluding heart transplants. Holy Cross Hospital is a 597-bed not-for-profit acute care hospital sponsored by the Sisters of Mercy, an order of nuns based in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania. It provides cardiac services including open heart surgery, but not including heart transplants. Its open heart surgery program began in 1976. North Ridge General Hospital is a 395-bed acute care hospital located in Fort Lauderdale. It offers full cardiac services excluding heart transplants; 34 percent of its hospital admissions are cardiac related. It has had an open heart surgery program for 11 years. Florida Medical Center is a 459-bed acute care hospital located in Fort Lauderdale approximately three and one half miles from Plantation. It provides a broad range of cardiac surgery excluding transplants and was the first open heart surgery program in Broward, opening in December, 1974. II. Statutory Criteria For Evaluating The Application Under Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes. Consistency with the State Health Plan and Local Health Plan. Section 381.494(6)(c)1. Florida Statutes. The State Health Plan specifically addresses both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgery. The plan recognizes a large body of research demonstrating a relationship between the number of procedures performed and surgical death rates; programs with low volume have higher mortality. One of the plan objectives is to maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990. The State Plan recognizes it is not advisable to open cardiac catheterization units in a facility which does not provide open heart surgery, and that "consideration" should be given to applications for open heart surgery facilities which provide cardiac catheterization. The State Plan does not state or imply, however, that every facility with a catheterization program should also have open heart surgery. The State Plan specifically recognizes there is support within medicine for cardiac catheterization labs not associated with open heart surgery programs. Florida currently has a significant number of hospitals with catheterization programs which do not perform open heart surgery. Neither the State nor Local Health Plans link approval of open heart surgery programs at a facility to the number of catheterizations being done at an institution. The District X (Broward County) Health Plan for 1985 states that each existing open heart surgery program must be performing at least 350 cases annually before additional programs will be considered. The parties have stipulated that each existing and approved open heart surgery program in Broward County is not currently operating at 350 open heart surgery cases per year. The District X Health Plan concludes that accessibility to either catheterization or open heart surgery is not a problem for residents of District X. The District plan recommends that "[N]ew cardiac catheterization or cardiac surgery programs should not be approved unless they meet or exceed the standards and criteria set forth by HRS." The plan does not specify circumstances which the Local Health Council identifies as justifying a departure from those standards. Nowhere in the District X Health Plan's examination of available cardiac services is evaluation based on anything other than a district-wide basis. The Local Health Council has neither adopted subdistricts for cardiac services nor manifested through its plan any indication that new cardiac services should be examined on anything less than a district-wide basis. Division of the county north and south or east and west should not be done in determining the need for open heart surgery in Broward; the county should be looked at as a unit. Plantation has argued that there are different medical communities in the east and west portions of Broward County and that physician referral patterns are such that State Road 441 is a dividing line between east and west medical communities. It maintains that Florida Medical Center is the only open heart provider located in the west, and thus operates almost without competition in western Broward, and without competitive stimulus to affect cost or quality of service. In the absence of sub-districting by the Local Health Council, ad hoc balkanization of the county is inappropriate. Neither of the applications satisfy the criteria of the Local Health Plan. Insofar as Rule 10-5.0ll(1)(f)7., Florida Administrative Code, requires applications to be consistent with the Local Health Plan and the State Health Plan, both applications failed to meet that portion of the rule. Availability, Utilization, Geographic Accessibility and Economic Accessibility Of Facilities In The District. Section 381.494(6)(c)2., Florida Statutes. As to service accessibility, open heart services are available within two hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of the District X population. The Local Health Council has found that accessibility does not present a problem to the residents of District X. Open heart surgery is available to patients in Broward County, including indigents who are able to receive treatment at Broward General without regard to ability to pay. As to utilization, none of the five existing providers of open heart surgery in Broward operates at capacity. North Ridge can easily handle 150 more open heart surgery cases per year with its current staffing. Broward General is working 4 hours per day 4 days a week to do 230 open heart surgeries. Holy Cross performs only 235 procedures per year in its two operating rooms dedicated to open heart surgery. Florida Medical Center performs about 400 open heart surgeries in its two dedicated operating rooms. Memorial Hospital can handle twice its 1986 rate of 355 open heart procedures without difficulty. The record as a whole indicates there is currently substantial excess capacity in the existing open heart surgery programs in District X. This will continue through the planning horizon. While there may be occasional scheduling problems at any of the 5 current providers of open heart surgery at times of peak demand, these anecdotal problems do not support a finding that open heart surgery is inaccessible or that current providers are overutilized. North Broward failed to demonstrate that there is any concentration of hispanic migrant workers in northwest Broward in need of open heart surgery services that are not receiving them and which it, as a tax supported institution, would serve. There is no issue as to the applicants' ability to meet the standard enacted in Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)(3), Florida Administrative Code, which implements Section 381.494(6)(c) 2., Florida Statutes. Quality of Care Section 381.494(6)(c)3., Florida Statutes Additional open heart programs would reduce the number of procedures done in the existing programs and thereby affect quality of care, for an open heart surgical team needs to perform a considerable number of procedures to remain proficient. Efficiency and communication among the entire surgical team is important to lower operating time and time under anesthesia. The team consists of the surgeon, an assistant surgeon, surgical nurses, the pump profusionist, the anesthesiologist, the hospital intensive care unit, the monitoring units, and physical and respiratory therapy units. In 1986 North Ridge performed about 600 open heart procedures. Florida Medical Center performed about 404; Memorial performed approximately 355, Broward General Medical Center performed 235, and Holy Cross performed 235. All provide high quality care. Holy Cross Hospital and Broward General Medical Center have not reached the 350 procedure volume required by Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11. (I), Florida Administrative Code. Memorial and Florida Medical Center are just over the 350 procedure volume set in the rule and will drop below that number if Plantation is approved, which would degrade the quality of care at those institutions. Economies And Improvement In Services Derived From Shared Health Care Resources Section 381.494(6)(c)51 Florida Statutes. Plantation did not contend that its proposal would result in economies and improvements from joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. North Broward proposes to share the same open heart surgical team that is now being using by Broward General, a larger hospital owned by the North Broward Hospital District. North Broward has no contract with the surgeons at Broward General to insure that they will staff its open heart surgery program if it is approved. If the volume of open heart surgery at North Broward grows to occupy its current open heart surgeons full time, additional surgeons can be added to the group of surgeons who serve Broward General. A witness for North Broward testified that this would still constitute a shared service program. Such an elastic definition of a "shared service", based on whether all surgeons are in a group practice together rather than on whether actual procedures are done together, is useless. National Health Planning Guidelines published in the Federal Register on March 28, 1978 state than an open heart surgery program should reach 200 cases within three years in order to be cost effective and to have a high level of care, and that additional programs should not be approved unless all existing programs have reached the level of 350 cases per program. 43 Fed.Reg. 13048. These standards are generally incorporated in Rule 10-5.011(1)(f) governing open heart surgery programs. The federal regulation also states that in special circumstances, a shared surgical team may perform fewer than 200 cases if they are performing open heart surgery in more than one institution; in such cases procedures at each institution may be aggregated to reach the 200 case level. The Federal Register states "In some areas open heart surgical teams, including surgeons and specialized technologists, are utilizing more than one institution. For these institutions the guidelines may be applied to the combined number of open heart procedures performed by the surgical team where an adjustment is justifiable in line with Section 121.6(B) and promotes more cost effective use of available facilities and support personnel. In such cases, in order to maintain quality care a minimum of 75 open heart procedures at any institution is advisable. . . ." 43 Fed. Reg. 13048 Section 121.6(B) states that adjustments may be made by local health systems agencies (now local health councils) to the standards set in the Federal guidelines for important reasons, e.g. increased cost of care for a substantial number of patients in the area if the guidelines are followed, or if residents of the service area do not have access to necessary health services. Special circumstances which have justified the use of a shared surgical team under the federal guidelines have been to provide indigent care, geographic accessibility, trauma service, or to meet the needs of a teaching hospital. While special circumstances may justify the use of a shared team, a shared team is not a special circumstance in and of itself. A reading of the entire portion of the federal guidelines dealing with shared surgical teams leads to the conclusion that the circumstances in which those guidelines authorize the use of shared surgical teams to operate open heart surgery programs that would not otherwise meet the National guidelines are not present. North Broward's proposal to use a shared open heart surgical team with Broward General does not enhance its application. The Extent To Which The Proposed Services Will Be Accessible To All Residents Of The Service District. Section 381.494(6)(c)8., Florida Statutes The parties stipulated that the Petitioners' meet the considerations of criteria 8 regarding health manpower, management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures, and that the other portions of subsection 8 are inapplicable, except for the clause concerning the extent to which the proposed services are accessible to all residents of the service district. The proposed services at North Broward would be economically accessible to the residents of the service district. North Broward serves patients without regard to their financial resources. It currently cares for indigents in its cardiac catheterization laboratory. Its filings with the Hospital Cost Containment Board for 1987 budget 19.5 percent of its charges as unpaid because rendered to indigents. The budget also projects Medicaid deductions as 5.2 percent of total revenue. By comparison, North Ridge and Holy Cross project 0 percent Medicaid deductions in their 1987 budgets. North Ridge projects only 3.7 percent and Holy Cross 4.5 percent for uncompensated indigent care. Florida Medical Center's performance shows only 0.1 percent Medicaid and 6.1 percent uncompensated care, which includes bad debt. None of the current open heart surgery providers which are privately owned has a particularly good record in providing access to indigents. On the other hand, indigents generally do not significantly utilize open heart surgical services. Plantation's current Medicaid utilization approximates 2 percent. There is no indication that Plantation's proposal will significantly enhance economic accessibility of open heart surgery services to indigents in District X. It has given no undertaking that it will provide any particular level of service to indigents. While Plantation will accept patients when a physician with staff privileges chooses to admit the patient, there is no showing that physicians at Plantation have any significant indigent patient load. Probable Impact Of The Proposed Projects On The Cost Of Providing Open Heart Surgery Services. Section 381.494(6)(c) 12., Florida Statutes There is no need in the district for a new program and the approval of additional programs will have an adverse economic impact on existing providers by diluting the number of procedures now being performed by existing programs. For example, Plantation is physically near Florida Medical Center. Much of the cardiac surgery and therapeutic catheterization (angioplasty) performed on patients who receive diagnostic catheterization at Plantation is now being done at Florida Medical Center. Patients who have diagnostic catheterization usually have their open heart surgery or angioplasty at the hospital where their catheterization was performed. Thus if Plantation receives approval for its open heart surgery program, most of those patients who receive cardiac catheterizations at Plantation would have their angioplasty or open heart surgery done there rather than at Florida Medical Center. Florida Medical Center has not attached a particular dollar loss figure to the impact of the approval of Plantation's open heart surgery program. Approval of the Plantation program will result in a pre-tax income decrement to North Ridge of approximately $416,000 in the 12 months ending December 31, 1989. Memorial Hospital would probably lose $690,000 in net revenue if Plantation is approved. Holy Cross would lose about 15 percent of its heart patients. II. Factual Findings Concerning The Rule Criteria Against Which The Application Must Be Evaluated Rule Hethodology. Rule 10-5.011(f)8. The parties have stipulated that applied on a District-wide basis, the formula set in Rule 10-5.011(f)8., using the 1984 or 1985 District X open heart surgery use rate applied to the 1987 population forecast for Broward County by the Governor's Office results in an average of less than 350 procedures annually for the existing providers in Broward County. Moreover, each existing and approved open heart surgery program in Broward is not currently operating at 350 open heart surgery cases per year. According to the evidence from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the methodology shows need for 4.4 open heart programs in Broward County. HRS Exhibit 1. Minimum Service Volume For Existing Applicants, Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)ll. Florida Administrative Code. The rule also requires that the service volume of each existing and approved open heart program be at least 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year. Holy Cross and Broward Medical Center have not reached the 350 minimum service volume in 1986. Memorial and Florida Medical Center just reached that level in 1986. The Abnormal Circumstance Exception Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)2., Florida Statutes The rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services provides that the "Department will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in any service area unless the conditions of sub- paragraphs 8. and 11. . . . are met". As shown in the discussion above, those sub-paragraphs are not met by the applications and unless an abnormal situation prevails in Broward County, the applications should be denied. Service Accessibility Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)4., Florida Administrative Code The parties stipulated that each of the Petitioners meets the requirements of service accessibility involving travel time, hours of operation and waiting. The only issue remaining is the criterion dealing with underserved population groups. There is no persuasive evidence that there are any underserved population groups in Broward County, i.e. Medicare, Medicaid or indigent patients. Broward General has additional capacity to serve such patients. Service Quality Rule 10-5.011(1)(f) 5., Florida Administrative Code The parties stipulated that Petitioners' applications meet the criteria of this rule, except as logistically affected by North Broward's shared surgical concept, and the applicant's ability to achieve a minimum service volume. The application of North Broward meets the rule criteria insofar as having an adequate number of appropriately trained personnel for the program. The problem is that with the shared surgical team it is physically impossible for the team to be in two hospitals at the same time. Both applicants would achieve the necessary volume of 200 procedures within 3 years. Cost Effectiveness Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)6., Florida Administrative Code The parties stipulated that both applicants' proposed equipment lists and costs are not in dispute. The charges to be made for open heart surgery at Plantation and North Broward would be comparable with charges established by similar institutions in the service area. Mere competition, given five existing providers, would insure this. There is, however, a less costly alternative to the institution at Plantation and North Broward of open heart surgery programs: Further use of the existing programs which do not meet the minimum 350 procedure service level required by Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11., Florida Administrative Code. The cost effectiveness component of Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)6. has not been met by either applicant.
Recommendation The applications of North Broward Medical Center and Plantation General Hospital for approval of open heart surgery programs should be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1535, 86-1536 Rulings on the Joint Proposals of the Applicants: 1-6. Covered in Findings of Fact 1-3. 7-10. To the extent appropriate, covered in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a conclusion, not a finding. Rejected for the reasons stated in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected because to the extent that the State Plan speaks of maintaining an average of 300 open heart surgery procedures, it is inconsistent with the portion of Rule 10-5.11(1)(f)1l. a. (I) which requires each program to have a volume of 350. Rejected for the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 10- 12. Rejected because to the extent that the State Plan speaks of maintaining an average of 300 open heart surgery procedures, it is inconsistent with the portion of Rule 10-5.11(1)(f)11. a. (I) which requires each program to have a volume of 350. Covered in Finding of Fact 41. Covered in Finding of Fact 32. Covered in Finding of Fact 40. Rejected because whether the "350" standard relates to economic efficiency or other issues it still applies, and is not met. The allegation that Holy Cross has not met the standard due to its own constraints is rejected. Rejected because the concept of a shared surgical team is rejected. See Findings of Fact 30-33 and 40. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary because existing providers do not perform 350 procedures per year as the rule requires. Rejected because Holy Cross performed 235 procedures. See Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 25-30. Rejected because the attempt to use a use rate other than that prescribed in Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8. is improper. 31-34. The evidence that other providers have operational constraints which impede expansion of the number of procedures at their facilities are unpersuasive. 35-37. Covered in Finding of Fact 35. Covered in Finding of Fact 35. This attempt to create a subdistrict for open heart services is rejected as inconsistent with the Local Health Plan. Covered in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as legal interpretation not a fact. Rejected as legal interpretation not a fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Subparagraph 11. of the rule does not speak in terms of averages. This finding is rejected. To the extent HRS may have, in the past, used averages rather than absolute numbers, that was a misapplication of the rule. Rejected because the contention concerning operational constraints of Holy Cross is rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected as unnecessary. 47-53. Rejected because although the applicants can meet the 200 procedure minimum service volume they cannot meet the other requirements of subparagraph 11, rendering further findings on minimum service volume unnecessary and subordinate. 54-61. Rejected because although cardiologists would prefer to have open heart surgery available so that they can also provide therapeutic catheterizations, they are not necessary for operation of a diagnostic catheterization laboratory. See Finding of Fact 11. 62-71. Covered in Finding of Fact 35 and 36. 72. The necessary findings concerning shared services are made in Findings of Fact 30-33. The additional information in these proposals is unnecessary. 79-83. Covered in Finding of Fact 41, to the extent necessary. 84-164. The findings concerning lack of adverse impact on intervenors are generally rejected. The approval of additional programs will necessarily have the effect of diluting the number of procedures performed by existing providers, which has an adverse financial impact on them. The losses the opponents will experience are not especially significant, in the sense that they would cause existing providers to cease providing open heart surgery services. The factor is not so significant in the balancing to justify the extensive proposed findings made by the applicants, which are therefore rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Ruling on Proposals of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services: The Proposed Recommended Order submitted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is quite brief. All of the proposals have essentially been adopted in the Recommended Order. Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Florida Medical Center: Covered in introductory paragraph. Covered in statement of issue. 3-5. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 6. Rejected as unnecessary because capital costs are not an issue. 7-8. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. 11-13. Rejected as unnecessary. 14. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 15. Rejected as unnecessary. 16-17. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. 18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19. Discussed in Conclusion of Law 12. 20-24. Rejected as unnecessary. 25-27. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 28. Rejected as subordinate. 29. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. 30-31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32. Covered in Finding of Fact 37. 33-41. Rejected as unnecessary. 42-43. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. 44. Rejected as unnecessary. 45. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. 46. Covered in Finding of Fact 10. 47-48. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. 49. Covered in Finding of Fact 12. Covered in Finding of Fact 13. Covered in Finding of Fact 14. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Covered in Finding of Fact 16. Covered in Finding of Fact 17. Covered in Finding of Fact 18. 56-58. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because testimony of East-West communities is legally irrelevant. 61-62. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. 65-66. Rejected as subordinate and cumulative. Covered in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as unnecessary. 69-70. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 71-75. Covered in Finding of Fact 22. 76-77. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 27. Implicitly dealt with in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 40. 82-84. Rejected as unnecessary. 85. Covered in Finding of Fact 29. 86-87. Covered in Finding of Fact 36. 88-109. Covered in Finding of Fact 37 to the extent necessary. 110-119. Rejected because Section 381.494(6)(d) does not apply because the project does not reach the capital expenditure threshhold of $600,000. 120. Covered in Finding of Fact 38. 121-124. Covered in Conclusions of Law. Covered in Finding of Fact 20. To the extent necessary, covered in Finding of Fact 36. Covered in Finding of Fact 36. 128-129. Covered in Finding of Fact 41. Covered in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Conclusion of Law 10. 133-141. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as not constituting a Finding of Fact. Rejected as irrelevant whether HRS practice reflects what is found in the rule or not, HRS is required to follow its rules. Rejected as subordinate. Covered in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as subordinate. 148-150. Rejected as unnecessary. 151. Covered in Finding of Fact 36. Rulings on Findings by North Ridge: Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Covered in Findings of Fact 9, 13 and 16. Covered in Findings of Fact 13 and 33. Covered in Finding of Fact 7 to the extent necessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 27 to the extent necessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 21 to the extent necessary. 7-8. Rejected as unnecessary. 9. Covered in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. 10-11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 5 to the extent necessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 6 and 21, to the extent necessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 8 and 21. Covered in Finding of Fact 30 to the extent necessary. 16-17. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 30. Covered in Finding of Fact 31. 20-26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27. Implicitly adopted in Finding of Fact 31. 28-30. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Findings of Fact 2 and 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. This is governed by Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f). Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent appropriate, covered in Finding of Fact 37. 36-43. Covered in Finding of Fact 37. The specific impact of the opening of the North Broward Program in North Ridge has not been determined by the Hearing Officer because it is unnecessary to do so. An additional program will dilute the number of procedures already being provided, which clearly will have a negative financial impact on North Ridge. 44-47. To the extent necessary, covered in Findings of Fact 32 and 33. 48-50. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the shared surgical team concept has been rejected as the basis for the Certificate of Need, economic access is already adequate, demographic factors do not require a new program and rate of increase in utilization in Broward is not relevant because the rule requires a specific use rate. Rejected as a recounting of contentions and is not a Finding of Fact. Rulings on Holy Cross Hospital and South Broward Hospital District: Covered in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as subordinate. Covered in Finding of Fact 37. Covered in "Stipulation concerning applicable statutes." Rejected as a Conclusion of Law, not a Finding of Fact. Rejected as a statement of position, not a Finding of Fact. Covered in Finding of Fact 2. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 5. Covered in Finding of Fact 6. Covered in Finding of Fact 8. Covered in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as a statement of law, not a Finding of Fact. Covered in Finding of Fact 20. Covered in Findings of Fact 23 and 35. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as unnecessary. 19-20. Rejected as cumulative. 21. Rejected as unnecessary. 22-25. Covered in Finding of Fact 21. 26-27. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of law, not a Finding of Fact. Covered in Finding of Fact 21. Covered in Findings of Fact 37 and 28. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 25. 34-35. Covered in Finding of Fact 26. 36-37. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of a position, not a Finding of Fact. Rejected for the reasons proposal 38 was rejected. Covered in Conclusion of Law 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in Conclusion of Law 10. 43-46. Rejected as unnecessary. 47. To the extent appropriate, covered in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. 48-50. Rejected as unnecessary. 51-52. Covered in Finding of Fact 9. Covered in Finding of Fact 10. Covered in Finding of Fact 11. Covered in Finding of Fact 15. Covered in Finding of Fact 14. 57-58. Covered in Finding of Fact 18. 59-69. Rejected as unnecessary. 70-107. Covered in Finding of Fact 37. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald K. Kolins, Esquire Post Office Box 3888 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John Parker, Esquire J. Marbury Rainer, Esquire John Rue, Esquire 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire Eleanor Joseph, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Steve Ecenia, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric B. Tilton, Esquire Kenneth D. Kranz, Esquire Post Office Drawer 550 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue This proceeding concerns applications for certificates of need (CON) for open heart surgery programs at Central Florida Regional Hospital and Winter Park Memorial Hospital. It must be determined whether those applications meet applicable statute and rule criteria and should be approved by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. By stipulation, filed on June 20, 1989, the parties agree that the following criteria have either been met or are not at issue in this proceeding: Section 381.705(1)(c), F.S., regarding quality of care, only as to the applicants' record of providing quality of care in currently existing programs, and not as to the provision of open heart services. Section 381.705(1)(f), F.S., regarding the need for special equipment and services in the district which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Section 381.705(1)(j), F.S., regarding the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. Section 381.705(2)(e), F.S., regarding nursing home beds. Rule 10-5.O11(1)(f)3.c., F.A.C., regarding the applicants' ability to provide a specified range of services in the facility if granted their certificates of need.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Applicant, Central Florida Regional Hospital (CFRH) is a 226-bed private, for profit hospital in Sanford, Seminole County Florida. CFRH was a county-owned hospital until 1980, when it was purchased by Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hospital Corporation of America (HCA). CFRH currently provides a wide range of diagnostic and treatment services, including cardiology, neurology surgery, special imaging, and nuclear cardiology. Its in-patient cardiac catheterization services were initiated in April, 1988. Applicant, Winter Park Memorial Hospital (WPMH), is a 301-bed acute care, not-for-profit hospital located in Winter Park, Orange County, Florida. It was opened in 1955, and is governed by a board of directors comprised of business and civic leaders in the central Florida area. WPMH also currently offers diagnostic cardiac catheterizations services with medical/surgical, pediatric/obstetric, and a broad range of outpatient services. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the agency responsible for administering sections 381.701 through 381.715. F.S., the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", the statute describing the certificate of need (CON) process. Petitioner, Humana of Florida, Inc., is the corporate owner of Humana Hospital Lucerne (Humana), a 267-bed hospital facility in downtown Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Along with its broad range of existing services, Humana provides open heart surgery and a full range of diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheterizations. It maintains two operating rooms (ORs) dedicated for open heart surgery. Petitioner, Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc. is the corporate owner and licensee of a number of hospitals, including Florida Hospital. Florida Hospital is a private not-for-profit tertiary care hospital with over 1100 beds on three campuses in central Florida: Orlando, Apopka, and Altamonte Springs. Florida Hospital's open heart surgery program, the largest in HRS District 7, and one of the largest in the southeast United States, is conducted at the Orlando facility in Orange County. It has four ORs dedicated to open heart surgery. Florida Hospital has an active cardiac catheterization program with a full range of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as angioplasty and valvuloplasty. The Applications CFRH proposes to add its open heart surgery program at a total cost of $4,322,702.00, including construction costs, equipment and financing costs. CFRH intends to start with a single furnished OR and with shelled-in space for a second OR. These and a recovery area will be located on the first floor adjacent to the existing surgical department. Twelve existing general medical/surgery beds will be converted to intensive care beds on the second floor, accessible by means of an elevator dedicated to the exclusive use of open heart surgery patients. CFRH's primary service area is described as north Seminole and southwest Volusia counties, an area containing no other open heart surgery programs. It anticipates it will draw its open heart surgery patients primarily from that service area, and projects 200 surgeries by the end of the first year, with 288 surgeries during the second year. WPMH proposes to add two dedicated ORs and related operating suite rooms for open heart surgery, at a cost of $1,470,000.00. One of the ORs will be kept available for emergency open heart surgery cases. The application does not include additional intensive care or critical care unit beds. Because it is slowly phasing in additional progressive care beds, the applicant anticipates that the current bottleneck created by patients waiting to leave critical care to go to progressive care, will be relieved by the time the open heart surgery program generates a demand for critical care and intensive care beds. Like CFRH, WPMH claims a relatively local primary service area, east Orange and south Seminole Counties, and proposes that its open heart surgery program will serve that same area. WPMH projects a case load of 117 open heart surgery patients the first year, 173 the second year, and is confident that it will meet the minimum requirement of 200 adult open heart procedures annually by the end of the third year of service. Neither CFRH nor WPMH are projecting pediatric open heart surgery. Numeric Need and the "350 Standard" HRS Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8., Florida Administrative Code, provides the formula for determining a threshold numeric need for open heart surgery programs in a service area, defined for purposes of the rule as the entire HRS district. District 7 is comprised of Orange, Seminole, Osceola, and Brevard Counties, on Florida's east central coast. The formula is stated as follows: 8. Need Determination. The need for open heart surgery programs in a service area shall be determined by computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination: Nx - Uc X Px Where: Nx = Number of open heart procedures projected for Year X; Uc = Actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand population) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent deadline for the batching cycle; Px = Projected population in the service area in Year X; and, Year X = The year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future. Elizabeth Dudek is a health facilities and services consultant supervisor in HRS' Office of Regulation and Health Facilities. She was the Department's authorized representative at the hearing and was qualified, without objection, as an expert in health planning. The State Agency Action Report (SAAR), reflecting HRS' review of the CON proposals, applies the formula above as explained by Ms. Dudek. The planning horizon for the project under consideration is July, 1990, which, based on data from the Executive Office of the Governor, has a projected population of 1,492,327. The use rate of 202.53 per hundred thousand population for District 7 was derived from volume data provided by the local health council and from population data from the Executive Office of the Governor. The result of the formula is a projected number of 3022 procedures in the planning horizon. While the rule does not specify what is done with this figure, HRS looks to the 350 minimum number of procedures required in subsection 11. of the rule and divides 350 into the projected number of procedures, to derive a theoretical number of programs which could operate in the district. HRS found a need for 8.6 programs, rounded to 9. Since District 7 has four existing programs, this meant that 5 additional programs could be approved. HRS approved three, the two applicant parties in this proceedings and Wuesthoff, in central Brevard County. There is little, if any, dispute with HRS' application of its rule to this point. The parties do vigorously dispute the application of the following portions of Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), F.A.C.: 11.a. There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless: the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year, and, the conditions specified in Sub- subparagraph 5.6., above, will be met by the proposed program. b. No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which would reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. The volume of procedures performed at existing programs during the period, July 1987 to June 1988, was: Florida Hospital-Orlando 1612 Holmes Regional 333 Humana Lucerne 440 Orlando Regional 368 2753 At the time of this batching cycle, there were only "existing" and no "approved" (not yet operating) programs in District 7. Holmes Regional did not meet the 350 minimum, as reflected above. HRS, however, has consistently and over a period of years, interpreted the requirement of 11.a (I) to be that an average of 350 cases be performed by existing and approved programs, not that each program actually perform that minimum, annually. Under this interpretation, which assumes that all programs have equal capacity, there are sufficient procedures being generated in the district to allow for the existing programs to average over 688 procedures. Quality of Care Part of the rationale for the 350 minimum procedures per year is the widely-accepted view that mortality rates are lower when an open heart program experiences volume at a minimum level of 200-350 procedures annually. Dr. Harold Luft is a professor of Health Economics employed at the University of California in San Francisco, who has conducted extensive research into the correlation between volume of open heart surgery cases and quality of care. In his findings published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1987, in-house deaths were 5.2%, 3.9%, 4.1% and 3.1% in facilities conducting 20-100, 101-200, 201-350, and more than 350 annual operations, respectively. A strong correlation was also found between volume and "poor outcome", defined as patients who either died in the hospital or who stayed beyond 15 days in the hospital (the 90th percentile post operative length of stay). Poor outcomes occurred in 21.7%, 15.5%, 11.8% and 12% of the patients in facilities performing 20-100, 101-200, 201- 350, and more than 350 annual procedures, respectively. The correlations are even more dramatic for patients who received non-scheduled ("emergency") surgery, ranging from 7.7% deaths in hospitals performing less than 100 operations, to 4.6% deaths in hospitals performing more than 350 operations annually, and from 27.9% poor outcomes in the lowest volume hospitals to 16.3% poor outcomes in the highest volume hospital. Both applicants argue the advantages of having the open heart surgery in-house to avoid the trauma of transfer of an emergency patient from their facility to another existing open heart surgery program. Dr. Luft's study cited above suggests that, despite the trauma of transfer, an unscheduled case might still expect a better outcome in a higher volume facility. While it is sometimes necessary to transfer a patient from one hospital to another for coronary angioplasty or open heart surgery, those patients are most frequently medically stable and have been scheduled for the procedure. Where a patient in need of a diagnostic cardiac catheterization has a history placing him in a high risk category, the patient will generally be referred at the outset to a facility with full service back-up to avoid the chance of an emergency transfer. Emergency cases are rare in open heart surgery, and when they have occurred, they have been accommodated at existing programs, with little, if any, delay. The applicants presented ample hypothetical examples of elderly heart patients anxiously enduring emergency transfers by helicopter or ambulance with dangling IV tubes, balloon pumps or other support devices. No actual data was presented as to how many cases are transferred in this manner or to the mortality rates attributable to such transfers. Florida Hospital enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of its large open heart surgery program. It regularly draws patients from areas beyond the boundaries of district 7. No evidence was produced to suggest that the other existing programs are of questionable quality. Quality of care in the district will not be enhanced by approval of these applications. Access: Geographic and Economic Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)4.a., F.A.C. requires that open heart surgery be available within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours under average travel conditions for at least 90% of a service area's population. It is uncontroverted that this standard is met by existing providers. The average driving time from Florida Hospital to CFRH is 29 minutes, and from Florida Hospital to WPMH is just over 15 minutes. Although CFRH would be the only program in Seminole County, the population is concentrated at the lower end of the county, closer to Orlando and closer to Florida Hospital than to CFRH at the northeast end of the county. It would undoubtedly be convenient for patients and their physicians to be able to administer and receive all medical services in a neighborhood center, but no one is suggesting that every community hospital should have an open heart surgery program. Open heart surgery and its associated services are expensive. These services are not used by many indigent or Medicaid patients and no data is available regarding the level of need by this group or the impediments to access. WPMH has a reputation of providing low cost medical services and CFRH has a commendable history of commitment to public health, but the numbers of medicaid patients and indigents proposed to be served do not alone-weigh in favor of approval of their applications. Availability of Staff A single seven-physician, open heart surgery group performs virtually all of the open heart surgery in District 7, at Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC), Humana and Florida Hospital. The group has also committed to providing services at Winter Haven Hospital, an applicant in District 6; Wuesthoff; and CFRH and WPMH. In addition to surgery, the group provides in-house back up to facilities performing coronary angioplasty in their catheterization labs. When new programs come on line the open heart surgeon must spend substantial time training and working with the new surgery team at the hospital. This would further strain a busy practice. There are already delays at existing facilities in obtaining back-up surgery coverage. The group has stated that it will expand, if the new programs are approved, but it is unreasonable to assume that the expansion will be timed to fully accommodate existing demand and the demand of three new programs. The shortage of critical care unit nurses nationwide and in central Florida, is widely acknowledged, and Dr. Meredith Scott, an eminent cardiac surgeon otherwise enthusiastically supporting the new programs, cautions that the dilution of a pool of highly qualified nurses detracts from his support. When hospitals are unable to recruit sufficient nursing staff they are left with reliance on temporary agency personnel, a less preferable alternative in terms of costs and quality of care. Financial Feasibility Both applicants have the funds required for capital expenditures and start-up costs. CFRH's parent corporation, HCA, has committed that it will fund the project costs and has the resources to do so. The interest expenses allocated by HCA are appropriately included in the applicant's pro forma projection of revenue and expenses. The pro formas of both applicants, reflecting no more than a best guess, are reasonable. To the extent that expenses are understated, the charges will no doubt be adjusted, and they will also rise in the event that use rates do not reach expectations. Open heart surgery is a highly profitable health care service. Competition/Need/Impact on Existing Programs District 7 has four existing providers and a fifth approved provider, Wuesthoff, for a total of 11 dedicated ORs for open heart surgery, ranging from 4 at Florida Hospital to one at Holmes. Competition in the market already actively exists and was not a notable factor in HRS' decision to approve the applications. Wuesthoff's projected average charge for the first year at $30,400.00 is $4-5,000.00 less than that projected by WPMH and CFRH. A single OR has a capacity of 500 cases per year. HRS Rule 1O- 5.O11(1)(f)3.d, F.A.C. requires that each open heart surgery program be able to provide 500 operations per year. Same programs, as Holmes, and as CFRH's proposed program, have only one OR, evidencing acceptance of that capacity principle. Eleven existing and approved ORs translate into a capacity of 5500 cases. The horizon year volume is projected at a mere 3,022 cases. Assuming, for argument's sake, and as proposed by the applicants, that the need methodology of Rule 10- 5.O11(1)(f)8., F.A.C. under-states utilization rates and, therefore, need; or that the number of "cases" should be more properly adjusted by a multiplier to derive the number of "procedures"; ample capacity still exists. In the period of July 1987 through June 1988, existing providers performed 2753 surgeries. The projected 3,022 cases will generate 269 additional surgeries - enough to support Wuesthoff, the approved provider, (assuming no increase by existing providers) - but inadequate to justify the approval of two additional programs in the same cycle. It is obvious from the above that the applicants, in order to achieve their projected utilizations, will draw heavily from existing providers. At 1589 cases in 1988, (more than half the cases performed that year in District 7), Florida Hospital is a leviathan, a mega-center. Approximately half of its patients come from counties outside of District 7. Among the in- district patients, substantial numbers of referrals are from CFRH and WPMH. In a 13-month period ending in April 1989, CFRH referred 82 open heart surgery cases to Florida Hospital and one case to Humana. In 1987 and 1988, WPMH referred 70 and 84 open heart surgery patients, respectively, to Florida Hospital and 4 and 5 patients to Humana Hospital. Whether population growth or increased utilization rates will make up those losses is a matter of conjecture. Utilization rates have remained relatively stable since 1983, gaining 13 cases per thousand in that period, from 196 in 1983, to 209 in 1988. New technology is making it possible to avoid open heart surgery by removing obstructions from the heart vessel, rather than bypassing them. Ultrasound and laser techniques are being tested, and drug treatments and more efficient use of balloon angioplasty are reducing the incident of by-pass operations. Consequently, it is the sicker patients who receive the more invasive open heart surgery. And, typically, the sicker patients are referred to the larger, longer- established programs, driving up their costs when the new programs are able to skim the more profitable cases. Size alone does not cushion the impact on a facility such as Florida Hospital. The cardiology program accounts for one-third of its revenue. It helps support a research center and extensive education programs . Loss of revenue will effect these programs, as they, rather than direct services to patients, will be cut to the detriment of the health care community at large. Impact on Humana and the other smaller facilities is likely to be more direct. Humana's open heart surgery program was set back recently when a group of cardiologists left its staff in a dispute over administration. Volume has dropped and Humana reasonably projects 250 surgeries or less in 1991 and 1992 if WPMH and CFRH are approved. Both Humana and ORMC lost volume and market share when Holmes began to operate, since these facilities rely heavily on in-district patients. Like Florida Hospital, Humana derives one-third of its revenue from its cardiology program. State and Local Health Plans Both applications are consistent with the State Health Plan's objective of maintaining an average of procedures per open heart surgery program in the district, although as demonstrated above, actual maintenance of such an average would decimate the program at Florida Hospital. The plan's primary goal of ensuring the availability and accessibility of open heart services is not advanced by these applications. The most current State Plan is dated 1985-87; it is effective through 1987. Although widely referred to in CON proceedings because of statutory and rule requirements for consistency, the utility of an out-of-date plan for health planning purposes is questionable. The District 7 local health plan, approved by the local health council in June 1988, is internally inconsistent. It provides: District VII existing open heart programs appear to be performing well both from the standpoint of volume efficiency and quality, and clearly, there is sufficient, accessible capacity in these programs to handle additional growth. Consider, too, that new open heart programs are being developed in surrounding districts, and these programs, once operational, will begin to draw back their local patient bases from this district's open heart providers. Lately, as angioplasty, laser and drug technology evolve, there is little doubt that the percentage of patients requiring open heart surgery to correct blockage problems will drop. In view of these aforementioned facts, the approval of any additional open heart programs in District VII is discouraged. (Florida Hospital Exhibit #9, P. AC- 45.) emphasis added. At the same time, the plan provides four recommendations for tertiary services, including open heart surgery: specifically, that priority be given to CON applications from teaching hospitals or regional health care centers (defined as non-teaching hospitals) of at least 300 acute-care beds, that priority be given to applicants which commit to serve patients regardless of ability to pay, that applications be reviewed on a districtwide or regional basis, and that review priority be given to open heart surgery applicants which provide clear documentation of the impact of their proposal on other similar service providers in the district and in adjourning districts serving the same geographical area. (Florida Hospital Exhibit #9, P. 11-67) As discussed above, these recommendations are only marginally met by the applicants, if at all, and CFRH is clearly not a regional health center. "Balancing the Criteria" and Summary of Findings Additional open heart surgery programs are not needed in District 7. The expenditure of approximately $5.8 million in construction and start-up costs, the dilution of scarce staffing resources, the real potential that existing programs will suffer substantial financial losses, the real risk that declining volume at existing programs will lead to poorer quality of care or that the new programs will fail to achieve their hoped for volume, are not outweighed by enhanced convenience to patients, their families and physicians. Access to good quality open heart surgery is not currently a problem and, as advocated by Dr. Ron Luke, the more prudent health planning course would be to wait to see what happens in the district with the additional two open heart surgery operating rooms at Wuesthoff.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be issued denying CON number 5695 for Winter Park Memorial Hospital and number 5696 for Central Florida Regional Hospital. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by each party: CENTRAL FLORIDA REGIONAL HOSPITAL This party's proposal includes 68 separately numbered lengthy paragraphs combining argument with multiple findings. The arguments are well articulated and well organized. However, the format makes it impossible to accord a paragraph by paragraph ruling. The description of the parties, the description of HRS' application of its rule and the conclusions regarding financial feasibility of the CFRH application are accepted generally and substantially, or in summary form, have been adopted in this recommended order. Otherwise, the findings are rejected as unnecessary, immaterial or contrary to the weight of evidence. WINTER PARK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Adopted in paragraph 2. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7. Adopted in Statement of the Issues. 8-10. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. 13-17. Adopted generally in paragraph 9. 18 and 19. Rejected as unnecessary. 20-31. The current staffing at the facility and the level of staffing projected as necessary for the open heart program are not materially at issue. The issue is whether necessary staffing will be available and whether competition for existing staff will impact costs and quality of care. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. See 20-31, above. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. There are delays in getting back-up surgery teams. The description of the group and its commitment is adopted in paragraph 30. That quality of care will not be affected was not established by the weight of evidence. 36-38. Rejected as unnecessary. 39-47. Adopted generally in paragraphs 34 and 35, except as to the finding that there is sufficient growth to assure 200 cases in the third year for all three applicants. This is rejected as contrary to the evidence. 48 and 49. Rejected as unnecessary. 50. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 51-53. Addressed in paragraph 23, otherwise rejected as immaterial. 54-58. Addressed in paragraph 28, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Adopted in substance in paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraph 14. 61 and 62. Adopted in paragraph 12. 63. Adopted in paragraph 14. 64 and 65. Rejected as unnecessary. 66. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 17, except that the application meets the requirements of the rules, only as applied by HRS. 67-83. Rejected generally as contrary to the weight of evidence or immaterial. 84. Rejected as argument. 85-89. Rejected as immaterial or argument. 90. The comparison of Florida Hospital's mortality rate to that of Ormand Beach Hospital's is immaterial. There is no analysis of case mix and even Dr. Luft concedes that there may be isolated examples of high mortality rates with high volume or low rates in a low volume hospital. 91-93. Rejected as unnecessary or unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. That the application meets the objectives of the local health plan is rejected as contrary to the evidence. The remaining portion of the paragraph is subordinate Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in cart in paragraph 44, otherwise rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 99-115. Rejected as unnecessary. That competition already exists is adopted in paragraph 36 otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. THE DEPARTMENT OF HRS 1-3. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. 4 and 5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. 6-8. Adopted in paragraph 14. 9. Adopted in paragraph 45. 10 and 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted, as to the "averaging" method, in paragraph 44, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence, except as to the finding regarding drive time, which is adopted in paragraph 26. The quality of care stipulation is addressed in the statement of issues. The remaining finding regarding 200 procedures within 3 years is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 16 and 17. Adopted, as to financial feasibility, in paragraphs 34 and 35, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 18. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 19 and 20. Rejected as immaterial or unnecessary. HUMANA OF FLORIDA, INC. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. The original lack of pro forma is addressed in conclusions of law. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraphs 6 & 7. 5 and 6. Adopted in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraphs 14 & 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Preliminary Statement. 10-12. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. 16 and 17. Adopted in paragraph 46. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 19. 20 and 21. Rejected as unnecessary. 22. Adopted in paragraph 14 and in conclusions of law. 23-25. Rejected as unnecessary. 26 and 27. Adopted in paragraph 38. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in substance in paragraph 46. 30 and 31. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 26 and 27. 32-35. Rejected as unnecessary. 36. Adopted in substance in paragraph 41. 37 and 38. Rejected as unnecessary. 39 and 40. Adopted in paragraph 46. 41-44. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 45-49. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 44 and 45. 50 -60. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or unnecessary. 61-63. Adopted in substance in paragraph 36. 64-70. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 71. Adopted in paragraph 24. 72 and 73. Adopted in paragraph 25. 74. Adopted in paragraph 19. 75-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78-82. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 30-32. 83 and 84. Adopted in paragraph 33. 85-90. Rejected as unnecessary, except as adopted in paragraph 22. 91-1OO. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 29. Rejected as unnecessary. 109-123. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 124-125. Rejected as unnecessary. 126-134. Adopted in summary in paragraph 43. 135-138. Rejected as cumulative. 139-143. Rejected as contrary, to the weight of evidence or unnecessary. FLORIDA HOSPITAL Adopted in paragraphs 1 & 2. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 16. 5-12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 14. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 38. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 41. 20 and 21. Rejected as unnecessary. 22 and 23. Adopted in paragraph 45. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 26. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 22. 31 and 33. Rejected as unnecessary. 34-39. Rejected as argument or unsupported by the record. 40. Adopted in summary in paragraph 33. 41 -46. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as contrary to the evidence or immaterial. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Adopted in paragraph 39. 51-57. Rejected as unnecessary. 58-76. Impact is addressed in summary in paragraphs 42 and 43. 77. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 29. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffery A. Boone, Esquire Robert T. Klingbeil, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 1596 Venice, FL 34284 James C. Hauser, Esquire P.O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Ft. Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 John Radey, Esquire Elizabeth McArthur, Esquire Monroe Park Tower Suite 1000 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire 2700 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32314 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue At issue in these proceedings is whether there exists a need for a new open heart surgery program in HRS District IX and, if so, whether the applications of St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's), Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (Boca), and Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. (Martin), or any of them, for a certificate of need to establish such a program should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Case status In September 1989, Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (Boca), St. Mary's Hospital, Inc. (St. Mary's), and Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. (Martin), filed timely applications with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department or HRS) for a certificate of need (CON) to establish a new open heart surgery program in HRS District IX. That district is comprised of Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties. Boca's and Martin's applications sought authorization to establish an adult open heart surgery program, whereas St. Mary's application sought authorization to establish an adult and pediatric open heart surgery program. On January 26, 1990, the Department published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to grant Boca's application, and to deny the applications of St. Mary's and Martin. St. Mary's and Martin filed timely protests to the Department's proposed action, and three existing providers of open heart surgery services in the district, NME Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Delray Community Hospital (Delray), JFK Medical Center, Inc. (JFK), and AMI/Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, Inc. (Palm Beach Gardens), timely protested the Department's intention to grant Boca's application or intervened to oppose the approval of any new open heart surgery program in the district. The applicants Boca, a 394-bed not-for-profit community hospital, is the southernmost hospital in Palm Beach County and HRS District IX, being located in Boca Raton, Florida, just two miles north of the Broward County/HRS District X line. It was established in the 1960's, and is a comprehensive hospital providing adult cardiac catheterization services, as well as most services available in an acute care facility, with the exception of a designated psychiatric unit, burn unit, and neonatal intensive care. During the period of April 1988 through March 1989, Boca performed 656 adult inpatient cardiac catheterizations, and referred 192 patients for open heart surgery between July 1988 and June 1989. By its application, Boca proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program to enhance its cardiology services. Boca's primary service area covers a radius of approximately ten miles around the hospital, and it routinely serves patients from Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, on the north to Pompano Beach, Broward County, on the south. Presently, three providers of open heart surgery services are located proximate to Boca: approximately 11 miles north of Boca, an average drive time of 17 minutes, is Delray, a current provider of open heart surgery services in District IX; approximately 21 miles north of Boca, an average drive time of 32 minutes, is JFK, a current provider of open heart surgery services in District IX; and approximately 15 miles south of Boca, an average drive time of 19 minutes, is North Ridge General Hospital (North Ridge), a current provider of open heart surgery services in District X and the recipient of the vast majority of referrals for open heart services from Boca. St. Mary's, a 378-bed not-for-profit community hospital located in West Palm Beach, Florida, is owned by the Franciscian Sisters of Allegheny, and has served the community for more than 50 years. In addition to the full range of medical surgical services, St. Mary's offers obstetrics, a Regional Perinatal Intensive Care Center (RPICC) -- levels II and III, blood bank, dialysis center, substance abuse center, hospice center, free-standing cancer clinic, adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, and children's medical services clinic. Upon the opening of its 40-bed psychiatric center, which is currently under construction, St. Mary's will be the largest hospital in District IX. During the period of April 1988 through March 1989, St. Mary's performed 254 adult inpatient cardiac catheterziations. By its application, St. Mary's proposes to enhance its existing services by establishing an adult and pediatric open heart surgery program. Currently, there are no pediatric open heart surgery programs in District IX. There are, however, two current providers of adult open heart surgery services located in Palm Beach County and proximate to St. Mary's: approximately 6 miles north of St. Mary's is Palm Beach Gardens, and approximately 11 miles south of St. Mary's is JFK. Martin, a 336-bed not-for-profit community hospital established in 1939, is located in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. As with the other applicants, Martin offers a full range of acute care services, as well as adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services, a non-invasive cardiology laboratory, and cardiac rehabilitation and support services for cardiac patients and their families. No significant data is, however, available on Martin's adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program since it is a new service. By its application, Martin proposes to establish an adult open heart surgery program. Currently, there are no open heart surgery programs located in the four northern counties of District IX (Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties), and Martin is currently the only hospital located in those four counties that provides in-patient cardiac catheterization services. Accordingly, to access open heart surgery services within the district, residents of the northern four counties must avail themselves of the current programs existent in Palm Beach County. The protestants As heretofore noted, open heart surgery services are currently available at three facilities within District IX; Delray, JFK and Palm Beach Gardens, each of which is located in Palm Beach County. Delray is a 211-bed acute care hospital, sited in the southern portion of Palm Beach County, and located in Delray Beach, Florida. It is a comprehensive hospital providing all services normally available in an acute care facility, with the exception of obstetrics, pediatrics and radiation ontology, and is part of a larger medical campus, operated by the same parent company, that includes a 60-bed inpatient rehabilitation hospital that is physically attached to Delray, a 120-bed psychiatric hospital, and a 120-bed skilled nursing facility. In addition to its other services, Delray provides inpatient cardiac catheterization services and has, since 1986, provided adult open heart surgery services. With a recent addition, Delray has two dedicated open heart operating rooms (ORs) and one back up, as well as three separate intensive care units for coronary care, medical intensive care and surgical intensive care. For calendar year 1989 Delray reported to the local health counsel that it performed 338 open heart cases. Delray is located approximately 11 miles north of Boca, an average drive time of approximately 17 minutes. Between Delray and Boca, there is more than a 50 percent overlap in the medical staffs of the two hospitals, and almost 70 percent overlap in the areas of cardiology and internal medicine. Considering the overlap in the facilities' service areas, it is reasonable to conclude that if Boca's application is approved Delray would lose 122 open heart and 84 angioplasty cares in Boca's first year of operation and 130 open heart and 93 angioplasty cases in Boca's second year of operation. Such losses would translate into a after-tax income loss to Delray of approximately $645,000 in the first year of operation alone. Such loss of revenue and patients could adversely impact Delray's existing program. JFK is a 369-bed community hospital located in Atlantis, Florida; a small town just south of West Palm Beach. It provides a full range of medical- surgical services, with the exception of OB-GYN and nursery services, including cardiac, cancer, orthopedic, and medical/surgical intensive care and coronary care. It established its inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery program in February 1987, and currently has ten operating rooms, two of which are devoted exclusively to open heart surgery, and a 16-bed cardiac care unit (CCU), 10 beds of which are dedicated to open heart patients. For calendar year 1989, JFK reported to the local health council that it performed 262 open heart cases. As sited, JFK is located just south of West Palm Beach and within 10 miles of St. Mary's. Currently, there is an 83 percent overlap in the MDC-5 service areas (the service area closest to the open heart surgery program) of St. Mary's and JFK, and a substantial overlap between cardiologists on the staffs of both facilities. During the period of January 1988 - May 1990, 43 percent of the patients St. Mary's referred for open heart and angioplasty services were referred to JFK. Assuming St. Mary's could achieve the volumes it projected in its application, it is reasonable to assume that JFK would lose 75 open heart and 83 angioplasty cases in St. Mary's first year of operation, and 91 open heart and 100 angioplasty cases in St. Mary's second year of operation. Such lose in the first year of St. Mary's operation would translate into a net reduction of $1,200,000 in JFK's income. Such loss of revenue and patients could adversely impact JFK's existing program. Palm Beach Gardens is a 205-bed acute care hospital sited in north Palm Beach County. It provides inpatient cardiac catheterization services and has, since 1983, provided open heart surgery services. Currently, Palm Beach Gardens maintains two operating rooms dedicated to open heart surgery, and has a third operating room available for open heart surgery should the demand arise. For calendar year 1989, Palm Beach Gardens was the largest provider of open heart surgery services in the district, having reported to the local health council that it performed 491 open heart cases. Palm Beach Gardens is located approximately 10 miles south of the Palm Beach County/Martin County line or a straight line distance of approximately 25 miles south of Martin and approximately 10 miles north of St. Mary's. During the period of July 1988 - June 1989, 229 residents of St. Mary's primary service area had open heart surgery at Palm Beach Gardens, and 142 residents of Martin's primary service area obtained such services at that facility. If Martin's proposal is approved and its utilization projections realized, Palm Beach Gardens would lose approximately 84 cases in year one of Martin's operation and 101 cases in year two. Such losses in year two would translate into a $1,400,000 pretax reduction in Palm Beach Gardens' net revenues. Such reduction in revenues and patients was not, however, considering Palm Beach Garden's financial condition and open heart surgery volume, shown to have any significant adverse impact to Palm Beach Gardens, or any identifiable program within its facility. Likewise, should St. Mary's application be approved, volumes at Palm Beach Gardens would not be reduced below optimal levels, and it would not suffer any significant adverse impact to existing programs. The parties' stipulation The parties have agreed that the following facts are admitted: Boca, St. Mary's, and Martin Memorial timely filed their Letters of Intent and CON applications at issue in this proceeding. Further, the parties stipulate that the Letter of Intent complied with all statutory and rule requirements. The construction costs of $100,000 as set forth in Table 25 of St. Mary's application is a reasonable construction costs estimate for the renovation of one special procedures room to perform open heart surgery as proposed in St. Mary's schematic plans. The parties admit that adult open heart surgery services are currently available within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of HRS Service District IX's population. This stipulation is not meant to preclude other relevant evidence regarding travel times within or without District IX. All existing providers of open heart surgery in District IX are JCAHO accredited; all applicants in this proceeding are JCAHO accredited. Each of the applicants, if approved, have the ability to implement and apply circulatory assist devices such as intra-aortic balloon assist and prolonged cardiopulmonary partial bypass for adult open heart surgery. Each of the applicants, if approved, will be capable of fulfilling the requirements of an adult open heart surgery program to provide the following services: medicine, for example, cardiology, hematology, nephrology, pulmonary medicine and infectious diseases; pathology, for example, anatomical, clinical, blood bank and coagulation lab; anesthesiology, including respiratory therapy; radiology, for example, diagnostic nuclear medicine lab; neurology; adult cardiac catheterization laboratory services; non-invasive cardiographics lab, for example, electrocardiography including cardiographics lab, for example, electrocardiography including exercise stress testing, and echocardiography; intensive care; and emergency care available 24 hours per day for cardiac emergencies. This stipulation relates only to the provision of medical services, not that the applicants have sufficient capacity to provide those services in connection with an open heart surgery program. The redesignation of acute care beds from medical/surgical beds to any type of critical care unit beds, except for neonatal intensive care beds, does not require a certificate of need unless the hospital incurs a capital expenditure in excess of the capital expenditure threshold in accomplishing this redesignation. The Department's open heart surgery and methodology and the "fixed need" pool. On August 11, 1989, the Department, pursuant to Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, published notice of the fixed need pool for open heart surgery programs for the July 1992 planning horizon in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Pertinent to this case, such notice established a net need for zero new adult open heart surgery programs in District IX. There was, however, no publication of any fixed need pool for pediatric open heart surgery. Following publication of the fixed need pool, the Department received protests contending that its calculation of net need was erroneous. Upon review, the Department concluded that its initial calculation was in error, and on September 1, 1989, the Department published a notice of correction in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and established a new net need for one open heart surgery program in District IX. On September 5, 1989, St. Mary's challenged the Department's corrected need assessment, claiming the Department had underestimated the need in District IX for adult open heart surgery services, and on September 8, 1989, Palm Beach Gardens challenged the Department's assessment, claiming the Department had overestimated the need for open heart services in the district. These challenges were forwarded by the Department to the Division of Administrative Hearings, along with a request for the assignment of a hearing officer to conduct all necessary proceedings required under law. Pertinent to the derivation of the fixed need pool, the Department has established by rule an adult and pediatric open heart surgery methodology that must normally be satisfied before any new open heart surgery programs will be approved. That methodology, codified in Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, forms the premise for the Department's calculation of net need in the instant case. Pertinent to this case, Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, provides: 2. Departmental Goal. The Department will consider applications for open heart surgery programs in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in any service area unless the conditions of Sub-paragraphs 8. and 11., below are met. * * * 8. Need Determination. The need for open heart surgery programs in a service area shall be determined by computing the pro- jected number of open heart surgical pro- cedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination: Nx = Uc X Px Where: Nx = Number of open heart procedures projected for year X; Uc = Actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand popu- lation) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent deadline for the batching cycle; Px = Projected population in the service area in Year X; and Year X = The year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future. * * * 11.a. There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless: the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year; and, the conditions specified in Sub-paragraph 5.d., above, will be met by the proposed program. No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which would reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. Sub-subparagraph 5d, referenced in subparagraph 11a(II), provides: Minimum Service Volume. There shall be a minimum of 200 adult open heart procedures performed annually, within 3 years after initiation of service, in any institution in which open heart surgery is performed for adults. There shall be a minimum of 100 pediatric heart operations annually, within 3 years of initiation of service, in any insti- tution in which pediatric open heart surgery is performed, of which at least 50 shall be open heart surgery. Essentially, the subject methodology contemplates that three conditions must be satisfied before an application for a new adult open heart surgery program in the district would normally be approved: (1) a calculated net numeric need under the Department's mathematical methodology; (2) a determination that "the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 open heart surgery cases per year"; and (3) a demonstration that the applicant could perform "a minimum of 200 open heart procedures (cases) annually within 3 years after service is initiated." The first two conditions are utilized by the Department to initially establish the fixed need pool for open heart surgery services. The third condition is, by rule, related to an applicant's ability to provide quality care, and will be discussed infra. As a threshold for calculating need, and the fixed need pool, the Department's mathematical need methodology contains the formula for deriving the gross number of open heart surgical cases anticipated two years into the future. This methodology is based on the actual use rate in the district for the 12- month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the batching cycle. The number of cases is then divided by 350, which is consistent with the minimum service volume mandates of subparagraph 11 of the rule, to derive an actual gross need for open heart surgery programs at the horizon year. Existing and approved programs are then substracted to determine if there is a net need for a new open heart surgery program. While there was some dispute among the parties as to what the appropriate underlying data was to drive the Department's numerical need methodology, the parties agreed and the proof demonstrated a fractional need greater than .5, under the formula. 1/ The second step in establishing a need for open heart surgery programs, and the fixed need pool, is a determination, as required by subparagraph 11(2)I of the rule, of whether "each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service areas is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year." Here, based on the data available to the Department when it established the fixed need pool, the three existing providers had operated at the following case levels for the preceding year: Palm Beach Gardens - 494 cases; Delray - 328 cases; and JFK - 275 cases. Consequently two of the three existing providers were not operating at 350 cases per year. 2/ Based on the foregoing data, the Department initially published a net need for zero new open heart surgery programs in District IX. However, following the receipt of protests to the fixed need pool it had established, the Department, based on the same data, concluded its initial decision was erroneous, and published a notice of correction which established a net need for one new open heart surgery program in the district. This decision was timely challenged. The Department's ultimate decision to publish a need for one new program was based on two factors. First, the Department had historically rounded the numerical need up where fractional need, as calculated by its methodology, was .5 or higher. Second, although of questionable validity at the time, the Department had for several years "interpreted" the 350 case level, referred to in subparagraph (11) of the rule, to require that the average of the existing programs be at 350 before a new program would be approved, as opposed to the literal rule requirement that "each existing and approved open heart surgery program ... [be] ... operating at ... a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year." Accordingly, with differing views then pending in the Department, it elected to recalculate the utilization level by applying the averaging approach, as opposed to applying the rule as written which it had done in initially determining zero need, and therefore published a corrected need for one new program. On January 23, 1990, the Department issued final orders in three cases, each of which involved CON applications for open heart surgery services filed in the September 1988 batching cycle, Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 785 (1990), Humana of Florida, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 823 (1990), and Mease Health Care v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 853 (1990). In each final order the Department's Secretary stated, with regard to the Department's averaging interpretation, that: I conclude that the rule should be applied as written and that numeric need should be found only where each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service district is operating at a minimum level of 350 open heart cases per year .... I am not unmindful that the conclusion reached here departs from an established practice of interpreting subparagraph 11 of the need rule by averaging the number of cases done by the existing providers and finding subparagraph 11 to be satisfied if the average was 350 cases or more. As previously stated, I am now satisfied that application of the rule as written is more consistent with sound health planning .... Consequently, the averaging practice that resulted in the Department's corrected notice of need for the September 1989 batching cycle at issue in this case was specifically rejected by the Department as being contrary to the rule as written before it published its notice of intent to grant Boca's application. Even though the corrected need published by the Department was erroneous, as being derived contrary to the express language of the rule methodology, the Department and the applicants contend that such error is not subject to correction in this case because of the Department's fixed need pool rule and the Department's incipient policy regarding when it will correct errors in a fixed need pool that has already been published. Such contentions are, however, unpersuasive as a matter of law, discussed infra, and as not supported by any compelling proof. The Department's fixed need pool rule, codified at Rule 10- 5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides: Publication of Fixed Need Pools. The depart- ment shall publish in the Florida Administra- tive Weekly, at least 15 days prior to the letter of intent deadline for a particular batching cycle the fixed need pools for the applicable planning horizon specified for each service ... These batching cycle specific fixed need pools shall not be changed or adjusted in the future regardless of any future changes in need methodologies, popu- lation estimates, bed inventories, or other factors which would lead to different projections of need, if retroactively applied. In this case there has been no change in the Department's need methodology that leads to a different projection of need, as proscribed by the fixed need pool, but, rather, an identified failure of the Department to properly apply its rule when it assessed need. While the Department may have consistently misapplied its rule in the past, such consistency does not cloth it past action with any propriety where, as here, such action is properly challenged or, stated differently, because the rule was misapplied in the past does not lead to the conclusion that its proper application constitutes a change in need methodologies. Accordingly, it is found that the fixed need pool rule does not, under the circumstances of this case, preclude correction of the need established through the Department's publication of its notice of correction. 3/ The Department and the applicants also contend that the Department's policy on how it will treat corrections to a fixed need pool that has already been published, and errors in a published fixed need pool which are discovered after the cycle has begun, precludes any correction of the need published for this batching cycle. Pertinent to this point, the Department points to its policy, which was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly contemporaneously with its initial assessment of zero need, that provides: Any person who identifies any error in the fixed need pool numbers must advise the agency of the error within ten (10) days of publica- tion of the number. If the agency concurs in the error, the fixed need pool number will be adjusted prior to or during the grace period for this cycle. Failure to notify the agency of the error during this ten day period will result in no adjustment to the fixed need pool number for this cycle and a waiver of the person's right to raise the error at subsequent proceedings. Any other adjustments will be made in the first cycle subsequent to identification of the error including those errors identified through administrative hearings or final judicial review. Any person whose substantial interest is affected by this action and who timely advised the agency of any error in the action has a right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In order to request a proceeding under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, your request for an administrative hearing must state with specifi- city which issues of material fact or law are in dispute. All requests for hearings shall be made to the Department of Health and Rehab- ilitative Services and must be filed with the agency clerk at 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 407, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. All requests for hearings must be filed with the agency clerk within 30 days of this publication or the right to a hearing is waived. According to the Department, its policy is to correct computational errors in the fixed need pool only if they are brought to its attention during the grace period which is triggered by the filing of a letter of intent, and if there is sufficient time to publish a corrected fixed need pool prior to the CON application deadline so that all potential competing providers will have notice of the changes. Errors brought to the Department's attention after the grace period will only be considered in the development of the subsequent batching cycle's fixed need pool, regardless of the nature or magnitude of the error. Errors brought to the Department's attention during the grace period, but not reviewed by the Department until after the grace period would only be corrected for subsequent batches. Errors identified in administrative hearings or upon judicial review, even though predicated upon a timely notice of error to the Department, would be corrected in subsequent batches, but not for the batch in which the error occurred. The Department's enunciated rational for the foregoing policy is to instill "predictability" in the CON process, which it suggests promotes competition and affords the Department an opportunity to select from a broader field the best qualified applicants to "meet the need." Such rationale lacks, however, any reasonable basis in fact where, as here, there is no need to be met, and affronts sound health planning principles. The 350 minimum procedure level established for existing providers, before a new program can be approved, is an important threshold bearing on quality of care. In this regard, it has been demonstrated that there is a direct relationship between volume of procedures and mortality, with better results being obtained at facilities operating at a minimum level of 200-350 procedures annually. Accordingly, precision in assessing the need for new open heart surgery programs is crucial to assure that any new program could reasonably be expected to achieve a sufficient level of service, and to assure that the level of service provided by existing facilities would not fall below the optimum threshold. The Department's policy ignores this relationship, would recognize a need where none exists and thereby adversely impact existing programs, and would impinge on future planning horizons. As importantly, the Department's policy would supplant its own rule methodology for calculating need, and render illusory any decision based on a balanced review of statutory criteria. Accordingly, it is concluded that the Department has failed to explicate its policy choice in the instant case, and that numeric need under the Department's methodology is a viable issue in these proceedings. The need for the services being proposed in relationship to the district plan and state health plan. Applicable to this case is the 1989 Florida State Health Plan, which contains the following preferences to be considered in comparing applications for open heart surgery programs: Preference shall be given to applicants estab- lishing new open heart surgery programs in larger counties in which the percentage of elderly is higher than the statewide average and the total population exceeds 100,000. Preference for new open heart surgery programs shall be given to applicants clearly demonstra- ting an ability to perform more than 350 adult procedures annually within three years of initiating the program. Quality of care has been demonstrated to be directly related to volume; thus, facilities are expected to perform a minimum of 350 adult procedures annually. Preference shall be given to applicants who will improve access to open heart surgery for persons who are currently seeking the service outside of their HRS district. This will improve accessibility and reduce travel time for the residents in the district. Preference shall be given to an applicant with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share hospital criteria. Priority should be given to an applicant who provides services to all persons, regardless of their ability to pay. Preference shall be given to an applicant that can offer a service at the least expense yet maintain high quality of care standards. The physical plant of larger facilities can usually accommodate the required operating and recovery room specifications with lower capital expendi- tures than smaller facilities. Larger facilities also have a greater pool of the specialized personnel needed for open heart surgical procedures. Preference shall be given to an applicant that performs percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, streptokinase, or other innovative techniques as alternatives to surgery for low-risk patients. The applicant shall include in its application a protocol regarding the selection of patients for surgery or alternative non-surgical therapeutic cardiac procedures. All three applications are reasonably consistent with the state health plan's preference for establishing open heart surgery programs in counties in which the percentage of elderly is higher than the statewide average and the total population exceeds 100,000. In 1989, Palm Beach County had a population of 873,347, 23.4 percent of which were age 65 and over, which was higher than the statewide average of 17.9 percent. The next most populous counties in the district fell within Martin's primary service area, and were St. Lucie County, with a population of 142,440, 18.3 percent of which were age 65 and over, and Martin County, with a population of 96,336, 25.1 percent of which were age 65 and over. In all, the northern four counties had a population of 360,644, 21.2 percent of which were age 65 and over. The state health plan also accords a preference to applicants who clearly demonstrate an ability to perform more than 350 adult procedures within three years of initiating the program. Of the three applicants, Boca is in the best position to achieve the preference based on the number of diagnostic cardiac caths performed at this facility, and the number of patients it has referred for open heart surgery. Comparatively, Martin and St. Mary's are unlikely to achieve such level of service within three years of initiating a program. The third objective of the state health plan accords a preference for the applicant that will more clearly improve access to open heart surgery for persons who are currently seeking the service outside the district. Currently, while there is no access problem in the district, it is apparent that many district residents leave the district for open heart surgery. During the period of July 1988 - June 1989, open heart procedures were performed on 782 people residing in Boca's primary service area. Of those, 316 received treatment in a District IX facility, 383 received treatment in a District X (Broward County) facility, and the balance received treatment elsewhere, but predominately in Dade County (District XI). While there was a substantial outmigration from Boca's primary service area for open heart services, the vast majority of such outmigration, 325 people, was serviced at North Ridge, a mere fifteen mile/nineteen minute trip from the Boca area. With regard to St. Mary's primary service area, the proof demonstrated that during the same period 566 people sought open heart services, with 455 of those people receiving treatment within District IX. Of the 111 who sought service outside the district, 41 received treatment in Broward County and 61 received treatment in Dade County. Finally, with regard to Martin's primary service area, 316 people sought open heart services, with 148 of those people receiving treatment within the district. Of the 168 who sought service outside the district, 90 received treatment in Broward County, 29 in District VII hospitals, and 39 in Dade County. As heretofore noted, access is not a problem within District IX. However, to the extent this preference seeks to address the issue of outmigration, the proof demonstrates that Martin is the superior applicant. Clearly, the 15 mile/19 minute trip from the Boca area to North Ridge is not a barrier to access, and the number of people from St. Mary's primary service area seeking services outside the district are small in comparison to the other applicants. The residents of Martin's primary service area who seek treatment outside the district are, however, disproportionately large when one considers the aggregate travel time they incur when accessing services in the Orlando or Melbourn areas, or Dade and Broward Counties. The fourth objective of the state health plan accords a preference for the applicant with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the district. Among the applicants, St. Mary's is the only disproportionate share provider and provides the largest number of Medicaid patient days in the district. As between Boca and Martin, the proof demonstrates that Martin is more committed to, and has historically been a greater provider of, care to the medically indigent. The fifth objective of the state health plan accords a preference to the applicant that can offer a service at the least expense yet maintain high quality of care standards. Here, each of the applicants are large facilities, with demonstrated commitments to maintaining high quality of care standards. Martin has, however, demonstrated that it can offer the proposed service at the least expense. 4/ The last objective of the state health plan accords a preference to the applicant that will perform percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, strepokinase, or other innovative techniques as alternatives to surgery. Here, all applicants propose to offer such services. District IX's 1988 Health Plan was in effect at the time the CON applications were at issue in this case were filed; however, that plan had not been adopted as a rule. Accordingly, such plan is not pertinent to this proceeding. Venice Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case Nos. 90-2383R, et seg., (DOAH 1990). The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the district. Open heart surgery is a specialized, tertiary health care service. A tertiary health service is defined by Section 381.702(20), Florida Statutes, as: ... a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost-effectiveness of such service.... As a tertiary service, planning for open heart surgery services is done on a regional basis and concentrated in a limited number of hospitals to insure the quality, availability and cost effectiveness of the program. Essentially, the concept of regionalization creates a distinction between hospitals; some hospitals offer routine acute care services, while special high risk services are concentrated in a limited number of hospitals. Encompassed within such concept is the expectation that patients will be transferred from one facility to another to obtain tertiary care services. As a touchstone for assessing need within a service district, the Department has adopted the open heart surgery need methodology, discussed supra, that must normally be satisfied before a new open heart surgery program will be approved. Under that methodology, further need for adult open heart surgery programs is determined based on the projected increase in the number of open heart surgery procedures two years into the future and the open heart surgery volume of existing providers. The rule provides that, regardless of the projected growth in the number of open heart procedures, no additional adult open heart programs are granted unless each existing adult open heart program performs a minimum of 350 procedures annually. Application of the rule methodology to the facts of this case projects a growth in the projected number of open heart procedures sufficient to support a fractional need greater than .5, which the Department reasonably rounded to 1. However, two of the existing three providers were not performing a minimum of 350 procedures annually. Therefore, there is no need under the Department's methodology for a new open heart surgery program in District IX. While no need under the Department's methodology, the applicants have advanced several factors which they contend reflect negatively on the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization or adequacy of existing open heart programs in the district, and which they suggest warrant a finding of need based on special or not normal circumstances. Foremost among the factors pressed by the applicants as indicitive of an abnormal circumstance is the high number of District IX residents who seek open heart surgery services outside the district; referred to in this case as outmigration. Outmigration is, however, simply an observation of patient flow patterns and does not, in and of itself, constitute an abnormal circumstance that would demonstrate need in the district. Rather, to demonstrate a not normal circumstance, such outmigration must be demonstrated to be a consequence of some failing of existing programs, i.e., accessibility or quality of care, to be pertinent to any abnormal need assessment. 5/ In this case, there is no such failing in the existing programs. The three existing adult open heart surgery programs in the district are currently available to 90 percent of the population of the district within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours. Under such circumstances there is no geographic access problem within the district. Moreover, only Martin would actually enhance accessibility, were it a problem, because the residents of the four northern counties it proposes to serve must currently travel to Palm Beach County to access services within the district. In contrast, Boca is within approximately 30 minutes travel time of two existing providers in the district and an additional provider in District X. Likewise, St. Mary's is located less than 10 miles from two of the existing providers in the district. As with geographic access, there is likewise no economic access problem in the district. While the Medicaid use rate within the district for calendar year 1989 was .1 percent, well below the statewide average of approximately 2 percent, such raw statistic does not demonstrate that there is a Medicaid access problem in the district. To persuasively demonstrate such fact from use statistics would require a demonstration that Palm Beach County's use rate was significantly lower than counties with similar demographics. Here, there was no such showing. Moreover, St. Mary's, the largest provider of Medicaid services in the district, was only shown to have transferred three Medicaid patients for open heart or angioplasty services from January 1988, through May 1990. Finally, each of the existing providers have contracted with the Palm Beach County Health Care District to provide care to indigent patients, and have not refused service to anyone regardless of their ability to pay. Accordingly, it is concluded that there is no economic access problem within the district. With two of the three existing providers operating below 350 procedures when this cycle commenced, there is clearly excess capacity within the district when one considers the fact that a single operating room has the capacity to handle at least 500 cases annually. In reaching this conclusion, the applicants' assertion that delays may have been encountered in gaining admission to some facilities during the season because of a lack of critical care beds has not been overlooked. However, any such delays were not reasonably quantified in terms of number or duration, and were not shown to be significant. As importantly, existing facilities have increased their critical care bed capacity, and can increase it further by merely redesignating acute care beds from medical/surgical beds to any type of critical care beds needed as the exigency arises. Although two of the three existing providers offer relatively new programs, the proof is compelling that each provides a quality surgical and post surgical open heart surgery program, appropriately staffed, and that there is no want of quality care within the district. The use of agency nurses, as suggested by one applicant, was not persuasively demonstrated to reflect adversely on quality of care. Succinctly, simply because one is an agency nurse does not suggest substandard performance, and the use of agency nurses, as needed, to staff a facility does not, of itself, aversely impact patient care. Here, the staffs of existing facilities are appropriately trained and supervised, and offer their patients a quality program. While there is certainly a significant outmigration from the district for open heart surgery services, such outmigration was not shown to be related to any infirmity in existing programs. Rather, such outmigration is most reasonably attributable to physicians' established referral patterns or patient preference. 6/ Finally, regarding special circumstances, St. Mary's suggests that its designation as a trauma center and the lack of pediatric open heart services to 90 percent of the population within a maximum automobile travel time of two hours warrant approval of its application. Such suggestions are, however, not supported by compelling proof. While it is true that St. Mary's has been selected by the Palm Beach County Health Care District, along with Delray, for designation as a Level II trauma center, such designation has not been contractually finalized and St. Mary's has not applied for such designation with the Department. As importantly, on October 1, 1990, a new law regarding trauma centers became effective which will reopen the county trauma center designation process, and require facilities to be designated by the state as trauma centers. Under such circumstances, it is speculative whether St. Mary's will become a trauma center, and until such event actually occurs such factor is not significant to these proceedings. St. Mary's quest for a pediatric open heart surgery program is premised on special circumstances, not numeric need, and finds it basis on the fact that no pediatric open heart surgery program exists in the district and that such pediatric services are not available to 90 percent of the population within two hours travel time. While such may be the case, St. Mary's application, on balance, fails to support such an award for a number of reasons. First, St. Mary's application projects that it will perform 10 pediatric open heart surgery cases in its first year of operation, and 20 in its second year of operation. It contains no projection for the third year of operation, but St. Mary's consultant, Michael Schwartz, opined that St. Mary's would perform 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases by the third year based on his belief that St. Mary's would capture 80 to 100 percent of the potential pediatric referrals from District IX and the northern portion of District X. Mr. Schwartz's opinions are not, however, credible. During the period July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989, there were 40 pediatric open heart surgery cases performed on patients residing throughout District IX, with 22 receiving treatment at Jackson Memorial (Dade County), 14 at Miami Children's Hospital, and 4 at Shands in Gainesville. During the same period, there were 24 open heart pediatric patients in northern District X, an area equi-distant in travel time from the Miami facilities and St. Mary's, with 15 receiving treatment at Jackson Memorial, 8 at Miami Children's Hospital and 1 at Shands. Each of these facilities are either teaching hospitals or specialty pediatric hospitals, are among the top four facilities in the state that perform over 100 pediatric open heart surgery cases each year, and each enjoys an excellent reputation for providing quality pediatric care. Given existent referral patterns and the quality of existing pediatric programs, it is improbable that St. Mary's could reach its projected utilization for years one and two, much less attain a level of 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases during its third year of operation. In 1994, the third year of St. Mary's program, there would be approximately 53 pediatric open heart surgery cases performed on patients residing throughout District IX. To attain a level of 50 cases in its third year, St. Mary's would have to attract almost 100 percent of all cases arising within the district, an improbable occurrence. Equally improbable is St. Mary's ability to penetrate the pediatric open heart surgery market in northern Broward County, an area defined by Mr. Schwartz as being equi-distant in travel time from the Miami facilities and St. Mary's, given existent referral patterns and physicians' satisfaction with existing programs. In sum, the proof demonstrates that St. Mary's could not reasonably be expected to perform 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases within three years of initiating service. In addition to its inability to generate sufficient volume to maintain service quality in a pediatric open heart surgery program, St. Mary's also lacks a pediatric cardiac cath program which is required of any facility proposing pediatric open heart surgery services. Notably, with regard to pediatric cardiac services, Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), which relates to cardiac catheterization services, and Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), which relates to open heart services, are mutually dependent. The cardiac catheterization rule, as it relates to pediatrics, provides: 6. Coordination of Services. * * * Pediatric cardiac catheterization programs must be located in a hospital in which pediatric open heart surgery is being performed. * * * 8. Need Determination. * * * f. Pediatric cardiac catheterization programs shall be established on a regional basis. A new pediatric cardiac catheterization program shall not normally be approved unless the numbers of live births in the service planning area, minus the number of existing and approved programs multiplied by 30,000, is at or exceeds 30,000. (Emphasis added) Also pertinent to this issue, the open heart surgery rule provides: 3. Service Availability. * * * c. The following services must be provided in the health care facility within which the open heart surgery program is located and must be capable of fulfilling the requirements of an open heart surgery program: * * * (VI) Cardiac catheterization laboratory.... The Department reasonably interprets the foregoing provisions as mandating that a pediatric cardiac catheterization program or pediatric open heart surgery program may not be approved independent of the other but, rather, they must coexist. Since the proof is clear that St. Mary's only operates and is only approved by the Department to operate an adult cardiac cath program, and it has not applied for a pediatric cardiac cath program, its proposal is deficient. 7/ In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that, while pediatric open heart services are not currently available within District IX and are not available to 90 percent of the population within two hours travel time, that St. Mary's application to initiate such services should be denied. It is further found that the provisions of the open heart surgery rule relating to the two- hour access standard, which does not specifically state whether such standard applies to adult, pediatric or both, is not applicable to pediatrics. Rather, the Department interprets such rule provision to apply only to adult programs, because such standard is not necessarily pertinent to pediatric open heart surgery since it is more specialized or tertiary in nature than adult open heart surgery programs. Given the close relationship between the cardiac cath rule and the open heart surgery rule, the Department's position is reasonable. In this regard, the cardiac cath rule establishes a travel standard for adult programs, but not pediatric. Rather, it provides for establishment of such programs on a "regional basis," and provides that a new pediatric cardiac cath program should not normally be approved unless the number of live births exceeds 30,000. Here, there were only 16,500 live births in District IX in 1988, a number that is insufficient to warrant a pediatric cardiac cath program. Given such fact, and the relationship between the two rules, the Department's interpretation is reasonable and the two-hour travel time standard does not apply to pediatric open heart surgery. Finally, as to adult open heart surgery services, it is concluded that there exist no special circumstances within the district that would warrant approval of a new open heart surgery program, and that existing facilities are providing appropriate quality care that is accessible to all residents of the district regardless of their ability to pay. The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Each of the applicants in this case has established an excellent record for providing quality care to their patients, and would be generally expected to provide high quality care for open heart surgery patients notwithstanding some failings in their applications. During the course of the proceeding, some protestants contended that because an applicant failed to detail some particular item of equipment essential to an open heart program, that such failing reflected adversely on their ability to provide quality care. While such could be the case in the abstract, it does not, where, as here, the applicants have sound records, with a demonstrated ability to attract quality personnel to staff their programs. Such failings are, however, germane to the feasibility of the applicant's proposals, discussed infra. Other failings pointed to by the protestants, included: St. Mary's proposal to utilize a call team composed of nurses who customarily assist at thoracic surgery and to recover its open heart patients in a mixed intensive care unit; St. Mary's inability to achieve a 200 and 350 case level per year; Martin's inability to achieve a 350 case level per year; and Martin's failure to document in its application the manner in which it could rapidly mobilize an open heart surgery team 24-hours a day, or how it would treat emergency patients within a two-hour period. Again, considering the quality of the applicants, and the quality personnel they will attract, as well as the parties' stipulation, these failings are minor and do not reflect adversely on their proposals with but one exception. 8/ The only significant factor presented that could bear on an applicant's ability to provide quality care is its ability to achieve optimal utilization levels. In this regard, it has been demonstrated that a relationship exists between the volume of open heart surgical procedures performed at a hospital and the quality of care rendered at those facilities, as measured by patient outcomes. Overall, facilities performing more than 350 cases per year experienced the lowest in-hospital death rate, with those performing more than 200 cases per year being next in line. Pertinent to this issue, the Department has adopted Rule 10-5.011(f)5, Florida Administrative Code, which addresses service quality for open heart surgery programs. That rule, as heretofore noted under the findings related to the Department's need methodology, requires that a minimum of 200 adult open heart surgery cases be performed annually within 3 years of initiating the service, and that at least 50 pediatric open heart surgery cases be performed within 3 years of initiating such service. Here, St. Mary's has failed to demonstrate that it can achieve such level of utilization, and its ability to offer a quality program is therefore suspect. As importantly, Rule 10- 5.011(f)11.a.(II) precludes the approval of St. Mary's application under such circumstances. Boca and Martin could reasonably expect to perform at least 200 cases within 3 years. The need in the service district of the applicant for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas, and the needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a substantial portion of their services or resources to individuals not residing in the service district in which the entities are located. As heretofore noted, North Ridge is located in northern Broward County, a mere 15 mile/19 minute drive time from Boca. North Ridge is a 395-bed hospital that provides all services with the exception of obstetric and radiation therapy, and has for 15 years provided open heart surgery services. It currently has two cardiac catheterization laboratories, and two dedicated and two backup open heart operating rooms. At an average of 750 cases per year, over the last few years, North Ridge has additional capacity, and could comfortably accommodate 1,000 cases per year. North Ridge's primary service area is, and has been for sometime, northern Broward County and southern Palm Beach County, although prior to the initiation of other services in Palm Beach County it serviced the entire area. North Ridge markets extensively in southern Palm Beach County, has follow-up activities for its Palm Beach County residents, and has strong ties with the physician community in southern Palm Beach County. Accordingly, North Ridge has an established presence in southern Palm Beach County, with approximately 30-40 percent of its patients coming from that area. North Ridge's mortality statistics, along with its utilization and reputation, mark it as an excellent facility with a quality open heart surgery program. Moreover, its charges for open heart surgery services are significantly below those of Palm Beach County facilities, as well as those proposed by Boca. North Ridge's location makes it easily accessible to the patients of southern Palm Beach County, and physicians have not experienced any significant problems gaining access to that facility. Moreover, Boca's patients have been accorded first priority at North Ridge. With new technology and the development of various drug therapies, it is extremely rare for a patient to have such an urgent need for open heart surgery that transportation becomes a significant issue. When urgently needed, North Ridge, as well as Delray, can adequately serve the needs of southern Palm Beach County. In sum, there is a viable alternative for residents of southern Palm Beach County to Boca's application, and that is their continued referral to North Ridge. That program is easily accessible, reasonably priced, and historically sound. On the other hand, to approve Boca's application would significantly adversely impact North Ridge, since their service areas in southern Palm Beach County and northern Broward County overlap in most material respects. The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures, for project accomplishment and operations. Each applicant has demonstrated that it either has or can obtain all resources, including health manpower, management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures. Boca and Martin each have the funds on hand for project accomplishment, and St. Mary's has demonstrated its ability to acquire such funds through donations, as needed, for project accomplishment. Each applicant is a quality provider of acute care services, and has demonstrated through its existing programs its ability to attract and retain appropriate management and health manpower for project accomplishment, notwithstanding the current nursing shortage being experienced locally and nationally. Accordingly, while the cost of skilled personnel to staff their open heart surgery programs may exceed their initial estimates in some cases, any of the applicants should be able to appropriately staff their program through the use of existing staff, national or local recruitment, or a combination thereof. While each applicant has adequate resources, the viability of Boca's application has been challenged based on its failure to provide a complete list of all capital projects in its application, as required by Section 381.707(2)(a), Florida Statutes. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the only item listed in its application was for an "expansion/upgrade" of the physical plant at a proposed cost of $6.2 million. That information was an accurate financial description of that project at the time, but did not include other items relating to other construction and equipment purchases to which Boca was committed. In this regard, as of September 1989, Boca had committed itself to an additional $1,261,400 for projects relating to its 1989 fiscal year and $1,380,039 for projects relating to its 1990 fiscal year, for a total of $2,641,439. All of these items will be capitalized by Boca, and it could have provided a list or summary of such projects at the time of filing its application in September 1989. Boca's failure to do so, failed to comply with section 381.707(2)(a), and prevented the Department from having a complete picture of Boca's financial resources to complete the project. The extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district, and the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care service to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Of the proposed programs, only those advanced by St. Mary's and Martin would be reasonably accessible to all residents of the service district. In this regard, the geography and population densities of the district demonstrate that Palm Beach County, at 1,993 square miles, is the single most populous county in the district, with a 1989 population of 873,347. The northern four counties are geographically larger than Palm Beach County, at 2,404 square miles, and contained a 1989 population of 360,664, nearly one-third of the total population of the district. The most dense population in the northern four counties is the Martin County/Port St. Lucie area. The district itself measures 100 miles in length, north to south, in a straight line. Martin is located approximately 60 miles from the southern boarder of the district, St. Mary's is approximately 30 miles, and Boca is 2.1 miles Considering Boca's geographic location, it would not be readily accessible to all residents of the district. Martin and St. Mary's are, on the other hand, sited such that they could, geographically, address the needs of the district as a whole. However, St. Mary's, like Boca, is proximate to a number of open heart surgery providers and would not improve geographic accessibility within the district, as would Martin. Further bearing on the issue of accessibility, is the applicants' commitment to service Medicaid and the medically indigent. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that Boca has not been an historic provider of Medicaid or indigent care, and for its fiscal 1989 dedicated less than 1 percent of its total admissions to Medicaid and indigent care. On the other hand, St. Mary's patient mix has included 15 percent Medicaid and 5 percent indigent, and it is the highest Medicaid provider in the district. Martin has, although to a lesser degree than St. Mary's, also demonstrated a commitment to the underserved by historically serving 5 1/2 percent Medicaid and indigent patients. In its application, Boca "committed" to provide at least 2 percent of gross revenue generated by the open heart surgery program for the provision of charity or indigent care on an annual basis. Considering Boca's nominal historic commitment to indigent care, its location in an affluent area of Palm Beach County, and its closed staff, Boca could not reasonably achieve such level of care, and would not increase accessibility for underserved groups. Comparatively, St. Mary's and, to a lesser extent, Martin, would increase accessibility for underserved groups should the need exist. Here, St. Mary's has projected that 7 percent of its total patient days will be devoted to Medicaid patients and 3 percent to indigent patients, and Martin has projected 5 percent Medicaid and indigent. The costs and methods of the proposed construction. In its application, Boca estimated a total project cost of $7,499,856 to construct and equip a new addition to house its open heart surgery program. That figure included a $6,147,900 construction fund and $783,056 for equipment costs to complete the two operating suites, recovery areas and ten-bed surgical intensive care unit proposed. Its estimates were, however, deficient. Boca's equipment budget, as it appeared in its application, was prepared by an individual who had no expertise in this area, and was deficient in terms of the actual equipment listed and its cost. To properly equip and furnish the two operating room suites, recovery room areas and a ten-bed surgical intensive care unit proposed by Boca would require an expenditure in excess of $1,690,000. Adding necessary instrumentation and a backup pump could add an additional $50-60,000. At hearing, Boca sought to minimize the significance of its underestimation by offering the testimony of an expert in medical equipment planning, cost estimating and procurement. That expert, Richard Drinkwine, was most credible and found, upon review of the Boca proposal that it was wanting in both equipment and cost. In his opinion a more reasonable cost to purchase moverable equipment would be $1,027,267, and a reasonable estimate for the furniture needs of Boca would be $92,257. This estimate was based on the assumption that Boca would not initially equip its second operating room, exam rooms or recovery rooms. To do so, would add an additional cost of $411,329 (movable and fixed equipment) for the second operating room and $160,000 to equip the recovery areas. Adding needed instrumentation and a back up pump would bring Boca's equipment costs to over $1,740,000. 9/ While Boca underestimated its equipment costs, the proof demonstrates that its construction estimate of $6,147,900 was overstated. The major factor which accounts for the overstatement by Boca in its application was an over estimate of the cost to construct the first floor of its addition, which is a covered parking area. In fact, Boca will be able to construct its proposed addition for approximately $5,226,397, or $921,503 less than it estimated in its application. Although Boca could realize a significant savings on construction costs, and those savings would be adequate to almost offset the deficiencies in its equipment budget, the restructuring of its application at this time is not appropriate under the Department's Rule 10-5.010(2)(b). Notably, while the total cost figures might be the same, the additional equipment that is needed to equip Boca's program, and that was omitted from its application, is significant. In addition to Boca's failure to demonstrate the reasonableness of its cost proposal, it is also found that Boca's proposal is oversized and overpriced to meet any demands Boca could reasonably expect to fulfill at any time in the foreseeable future. First, each of the two operating rooms proposed by Boca are over 1,100 square feet in size. Such size is more than twice the size reasonably needed to accommodate open heart surgery. Second, areas in the central core and lounges are also larger then needed. More significantly, Boca is proposing a four-bed recovery area and ten dedicated SICU beds. Even assuming there is a need for an additional open heart surgery program in the district, Boca could never reasonably expect to capture sufficient market share to justify the capital expenditure necessary to warrant a 10-bed SICU. Ten SICU beds could handle between 900 and 1400 open heart patients in a year. There are no programs anywhere in South Florida, no matter how mature or well respected, that have achieved utilization close to that level, and it is not reasonable for Boca to expect to achieve such volumes. Significantly, a portion of the capital cost for Boca's project would, under the present system, be passed along to the federal government by the capital cost pass through. By this mechanism, over $3,500,000 of Boca's project would ultimately be reimbursed to the hospital in the form of Medicare payments. Compared to Boca's cost proposal, St. Mary's is modest. Here, the schematics submitted by St. Mary's with its application and omissions response depict the existing surgical suites at St. Mary's and the minor renovations necessary to convert an existing room into the proposed open heart surgery suite. As proposed, St. Mary's program would have a dedicated open heart surgery suite, as well as a backup operating room. Recovery would be accommodated in its existing 16-bed ICU. In its application, St. Mary's estimated a maximum project cost of $850,000 to remodel its existing facility and equip its proposed open heart surgery program. That figure included up to $100,000 for remodeling costs, and up to $700,000 for equipment costs. St. Mary's estimates are reasonable and cost effective whether its program is dedicated to adult and pediatric open heart surgery service or simply adult services. Significantly, the equipment needed to perform open heart surgery on adults and pediatrics is the same except for some special instruments. That cost, at less than $25,000, is nominal and does not affect the reasonableness of St. Mary's estimates. As proposed in its application, Martin would construct 2,800 square feet of new space at its facility for the purpose of implementing an open heart surgery program. The location of the project is the hospital's first floor adjacent to both the cardiac catheterization laboratory and the existing surgical suites. This location will provide rapid access for cardiac catheterization emergencies requiring open heart intervention and will share common areas with the existing surgical suites, minimizing additional construction and project cost. It is also proximate to a 9-bed surgical intensive care unit. Of the eight existing operating rooms at Martin, two are large enough to serve as backup open heart operating rooms in the event of an emergency, but Martin has not proposed to establish, or budgeted the necessary equipment to establish, a backup operating room. Martin, like St. Mary's, proposes a modest expenditure, compared to Boca, for the initiation of its open heart surgery program. In this regard, Martin's application estimates its total project cost at $1,239,029. That figure includes a total construction cost budget of $796,669, and an equipment budget at $375,360. Martin's costs and methods of proposed construction are reasonable. While the proof demonstrates that approximately $411,000 is a reasonable cost to equip an open heart surgery suite, it also demonstrated that Martin currently has on hand some necessary equipment, such as cell-savers and heating-cooling machines. Under such circumstances, Martin could reasonably equip its program within its $375,360 budget. It could not, however, equip a backup operating room within such budget, and without a backup operating room could not reasonably expect to be able to handle 500 open heart cases a year, as required by rule 10-5.011(f)3d, given the need to back up its cardiac cath program. The immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. To assess the financial feasibility of the project, Boca's pro forma of income and expense, contained within its application, projects 192 patients during the first year of operation of its open heart surgery program and 211 patients during the second year. Projected charges for both years are based on $55,430 for DRG 104 and $41,942 for DRG 106 with an average length of stay of 10 days. Payor class mix is estimated to be as follows: Medicare 70 percent, Medicaid 0 percent (nominal), insurance 25 percent, other 3 percent, and indigent 2 percent. Net revenue over expenses for year one is projected to be $1,303,312, and for year two to be $1,597,959. Boca's proposed charges, utilization levels, and payor mix are reasonable. However, its pro forma contained unreasonable assumptions regarding average length of stay, total deductions and expenses. 10/ At hearing, Boca made no effort to defend the unreasonable assumptions it had presented to the Department through the pro forma contained in its application. Rather, conceding the unreasonableness of its assumptions, it sought to minimize their import through the testimony of Rufus Harris, an expert in health care finance and accounting. Such objective was not, however, attained. Mr. Harris, employed during the course of these proceedings, actually prepared a completely new pro forma for the Boca program. That pro forma significantly changed Boca's average length of stay from 10 to 16 days; significantly reduced the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) in open heart surgery, recovery and the surgical intensive care unit (SIC) from 39.3 to 24.1; increased the number of support FTEs from 25 to 30 or 32; increased the cost per FTE in the open heart surgery program by $800; increased the cost for each support FTE by $14,000; included the indigent care assessment ($68,000), utility cost ($108,000) and malpractice insurance cost ($17,000) that had been omitted from the application; increased the supply cost by $618,000; and reduced deductions from revenue by $186,000. But for the charges, utilization levels, and payor mix, Mr. Harris' pro forma is a complete revision of Boca's application pro forma, and demonstrates that such pro forma was not based on reasonable assumptions. Although not based on reasonable assumptions, Mr. Harris opined that such failing is not material since Boca's pro forma, like his pro forma, calculated a profit. Mr. Harris' opinion is rejected. The bottom line profit he derived was based on a substantial change in Boca's proposed program. Such slight of hand does not address the financial feasibility of the program Boca proposed in its application. Boca's proposal, developed through the testimony of its construction, equipment and financial experts, bears little resemblance to its initial application, and must be rejected as an impermissible amendment. Boca's application proposed two operating rooms. As such, Boca could facially handle at least 500 open heart surgery cases per year. As amended, with one operating room, Boca could not reasonably expect to attain such level of operations, given the need to back up its cardiac catheterization program, contrary to Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)3d. As proposed, Boca's open heart surgery program would include recovery areas and a 10-bed SICU, fully staffed. As amended, the SICU would be staffed with one FTE and other staffing substantially reduced. Through downsizing, Boca would presume to significantly alter its proposal, and thereby demonstrate the reasonableness of its cost and financial feasibility projections. Such was not, however, the proposal submitted to the Department for review, and it cannot be permitted, at this stage of the proceedings, to amend its proposal in such material respects. Accordingly, based on the record, Boca has failed to demonstrate the financial feasibility of its proposal. 11/ St. Mary's pro forma of income and expenses projects 200 adult and 10 pediatric open heart surgery cases during its first year of operation, and 240 adult and 20 pediatric during its second year of operation. Separate pro formas describe the adult and pediatric parts of St. Mary's proposal. Actual charges proposed by St. Mary's will vary by DRG, as will average length of stay. The weighted average charges are, however, projected to be $38,000 for adult services and $43,025 for pediatric services during its first year of operation, and $39,900 for adult services and $45,176 for pediatric services during its second year of operation, based on a 10 day average length of stay. Payor class mix for adults is estimated as follows: Medicare 50 percent, Medicaid 7 percent, self pay/commercial 40 percent, and indigent 3 percent. Payor class mix for pediatrics is estimated to be as follows: Medicare 0 percent, Medicaid 50 percent, self pay/commercial 40 percent, and indigent 10 percent. Net revenue over expenses for its adult program is projected, on an incremental cost basis, to be $2,297,566 for year one, and $2,885,102 for year two. Net revenue for its pediatric program is projected, on an incremental cost basis, to be $62,326 for year one, and $224,797 for year two. St. Mary's proposed charges, average length of stay, utilization levels, payor mix, as well as its assumptions regarding total deductions and expenses are not reasonable. St. Mary's proposed charges were not shown to be reasonably achievable. Rather, where, as here, a facility's charge structure is based on consumption of services, the increased costs associated with an open heart program, discussed infra, would translate into significantly higher charges than those proposed by St. Mary's. St. Mary's application contains no data to reasonably support its conclusions that it will achieve 200 adult cases in year one and 240 adult cases in year two, nor did the proof it offered at hearing demonstrate such potential. Rather, the persuasive proof demonstrated that St. Mary's could not reasonably expect to attract more than 80 adult open heart cases in its first year of operation, and that it would not even be able to attract 200 open heart cases during its third year of operation. Notably, the area St. Mary's proposes to serve is currently adequately served by two open heart surgery programs. St. Mary's pro forma contains several other serious flaws. First, its gross patient revenues are driven by an average length of stay of 10 days. Such assumption is unreasonable, and St. Mary's could more reasonably expect an average length of stay of 15-17 days, with significantly higher expenses associated with the greater consumption of resources occasioned by such increased length of stay. Second, St. Mary's payor mix is significantly understated for Medicare. Here, the proof demonstrates that St. Mary's could reasonably expect to achieve a 68-70 percent Medicare utilization rate, as opposed to the 50 percent it projected. Such increase would significantly reduce its self pay/commercial, assuming its Medicaid and indigent utilization levels are to be accorded any credence, and significantly increase its deductions from revenue. Third, St. Mary's pro forma significantly understated expenses, primarily with regard to supplies and FTEs. Had St. Mary's reasonably calculated its average length of stay at 15-17 days, its expenses for supplies and FTEs would have been substantially higher. Additionally, St. Mary's application only addresses the need to tap incremental FTEs in the nursing area, whereas initation of an open heart program would have a tremendous impact on all services in the hospital, such as lab, pharmacy and social services, with attendant higher costs. Based on the opinion of Richard Cascio, an expert in health care finance, which is credited, St. Mary's proposal is not financially feasible in the long term. 12/ Regarding St. Mary's pediatric open heart program, the proof, as heretofore found, fails to support is utilization projection of 10 cases in year one and 20 cases in year two. Therefore, St. Mary's has failed to demonstrate the long term financial feasibility of that program operated, as proposed, concurrently with an adult program. As a stand alone program, neither St. Mary's application nor the proof at hearing reasonably address such a prospect. However, since the pediatric program was not shown to be financially feasible with the adult program bearing a significant portion of operating expenses, it must also be concluded that the pediatric program would not be financially feasible were it to carry all operating expenses. Martin's pro forma of income and expenses is predicated upon 148 adult open heart surgery cases during its first year of operation, and 195 cases during its second year of operation. Actual charges proposed by Martin will vary by DRG, as will average length of stay. Projected average charges are, however, projected to be $41,000 during its first year of operation and $43,080 during its second year of operation, based on a 15.7 day average length of stay. Payor class mix is estimated as follows: Medicare 63.0 percent, Medicaid 2.5 percent, private pay/commercial insurance 32.5 percent, and free care 2 percent. Net revenue over expenses is projected to be $260,000 for year one and $337,000 for year two. Martin's utilization levels, proposed charges, payor mix, and average length of stay are reasonable. Martin's pro forma did, however, contain some unreasonable assumptions regarding expenses, primarily staffing costs. 13/ Martin's pro forma estimates staffing costs based on the manpower requirements (FTEs) and salaries set forth in Table 11 of its application. It further calculates fringe benefits at 20 percent of salaries. Notably, however, the number of people needed to staff a program at a given FTE level is significantly higher than the raw FTE number. Accordingly, since Martin projected its salary expense and fringe benefits based on FTE's, its expenses associated with those items are understated. Further, the salaries Martin proposed in Table 11 for its operating room nurses are entry level salaries and Martin could not reasonably expect to recruit experienced open heart surgery personnel at such rates. Nor is its projected salary for a perfusionist, at $59,551 reasonable. A more reasonable figure would be in excess of $75,000. Even though the proof offered in opposition to Martin's application did demonstrate that Martin's assumptions regarding salary expenses were understated, it failed to demonstrate that Martin could not meet current market demands and still be profitable. Rather, Martin's proposal, while generating a lower bottom line, will still be profitable if such increased expenses are considered, and it is financially feasible in the long term. While each of the applicant's have demonstrated the immediate financial feasibility of their projects, by demonstrating the availability of funds for project accomplishment and operation, only Martin has demonstrated the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Other criteria bearing on capital expenditure proposals for the provision of new health services to inpatients. In cases of capital expenditure proposals for the provision of new health services to inpatients, Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department reference each of the following in its findings of fact: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. That existing inpatient facilities pro- viding inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the instant case, none of the foregoing criteria can be answered in the affirmative. Rather, the proof demonstrates that less costly, more efficient or more appropriate alternatives currently exist through increased utilization of existing facilities. It further demonstrates that two of the existing three providers have not yet attained a 350 case per year level of operation, and that their services are therefore not yet being used at an appropriate level. Existing utilization levels and capacity further demonstrate that patients will not experience any serious problems in accessing such services. Finally, the applicants further failed to demonstrate that they had considered alternatives to new construction and had implemented them to the maximum extent possible. In the case of all applicants' there is no proof of any effort to initiate sharing arrangements. On the matter of Boca's complaints regarding delays experienced in effecting patient transfers by ambulance, as well as the inadequacy of such ambulances and their breakdowns, it offered no proof that it had investigated other ambulance services or its ability to operate its own service and found them impractable. Notably, such services are an item over which Boca has significant control, and its failure to investigate alternatives in this regard evidences the insignificance of any such problem. The criteria on balance. In evaluating the applications at issue in this proceeding, none of the criteria established by Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, or Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, has been overlooked. The applicants' failure to demonstrate need, either numeric or not normal circumstances, as well as their failure to demonstrate compliance with Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes, is, however, dispositive of their applications, and such failure is not outweighed by any other or combination of any other criteria. Further, even were the fixed need pool accorded the deference suggested by the Department, the other indicators of need subsumed within other criteria would dispel such illusion, and again compel the conclusion that there is no need in this case. Had numeric need been demonstrated, and the need requirements encompassed within section 381.705(2) satisfied, the proof would still fail to support an award to Boca or St. Mary's. Rather, among the competing applicants, Martin was shown to best satisfy the pertinent review criteria on balance and would, under such circumstances, be the favored applicant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying the applications of Boca, St. Mary's and Martin for a certificate of need to establish an open heart surgery program in District IX. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of March 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March 1991.
The Issue Whether the adult open heart surgery rule in effect at the time the applications were filed until January 24, 2002, or the rule as amended on that date applies to this case. Whether either or both, Lifemark Hospital of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Palmetto General Hospital ("Palmetto General") and Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Aventura Hospital and Medical Center ("Aventura Hospital") demonstrated the existence of not normal circumstances for the issuance of certificates of need ("CONs") to establish adult open heart surgery programs in Dade County.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") administers the certificate of need ("CON") program for health care facilities and services in Florida. Section 408.034, Florida Statutes. Aventura Hospital Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Aventura Hospital and Medical Center ("Aventura Hospital") is the applicant for CON No. 9395 to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Dade County, in AHCA District 11. Aventura Hospital is a 407-bed community hospital located in the recently incorporated City of Aventura in northeast Dade County. It is approximately one mile west of the Atlantic Ocean on U.S. Highway 1, three-tenths of a mile south of the Broward/Dade County line. It is halfway between Fort Lauderdale and downtown Miami. Aventura Hospital is owned by the Hospital Corporation of America ("HCA"), which operates hospitals in 30 states and 3 countries, including 40 hospitals in Florida. The 407 beds at Aventura Hospital include 327 acute care beds, 32 adult psychiatric beds, 24 adult substance abuse beds, and 24 obstetrics beds. Services, in addition to those provided in the specialty beds, include general medical/surgical services, oncology, a breast diagnostic center, children's after-hours walk in clinic, comprehensive cancer center, dialysis, intensive care, orthopedics, inpatient and outpatient surgery, and physical, speech and occupational therapies. It is a Baker Act facility. The Aventura Hospital staff has from 700 to 750 medical doctors, and 1,200 to 1,300 employees. The emergency room ("ER") has approximately 34,000 annual visits. According to one ER physician on the staff, the average age of patients presenting at the Aventura Hospital ER is 84 years old. That results in a higher than average hospital admission rate from the ER, 35 to 40 percent, as compared to 15 percent nationally. The staff includes 52 clinical cardiologists, 27 invasive cardiologists and five cardiovascular thoracic surgeons. They currently perform, at Aventura Hospital, inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations ("caths"), pacemaker implants, echocardiograms, cardiac stress and cardiac nuclear testing, diagnostic and transesophageal echocardiograms, diagnostic and interventional vascular surgeries. For the 12 months ending June 30, 2001, 422 open heart patients left the Aventura Hospital's primary service area for their surgeries, and 1,132 received cardiac cath procedures. At Aventura Hospital, from April 1999 through March 2000, 178 diagnostic cardiac caths were performed. In terms of total cardiology services, Aventura Hospital is the largest non-open heart provider in the District, ranking second to Mount Sinai Medical Center ("Mount Sinai"). In calendar year 2001, there were 3,489 cardiovascular disease discharges from Aventura Hospital. The boundaries of the primary service area, from which Aventura Hospital draws most of its patients, are Hollywood Boulevard to the north, U.S. Highway 441 to the west, the Bal Harbour/Miami Shores communities near 125 Street to the south and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. Parkway Regional Medical Center ("Parkway Regional") in Dade County, and Memorial Regional Medical Center ("Memorial Regional") in Hollywood, in Broward County, are the closest hospitals to Aventura Hospital. The primary service area has a population of approximately 250,000 residents and includes growing retirement communities such as Sunny Isles Beach, Hallandale Beach, Southeast Hollywood, North Miami Beach, part of Miami Shores, and Bal Harbour. Parkway Regional and Aventura reported a combined total of 1,721 ischemic heart diseases (IHD) discharges in calendar year 2000. IHD is the diagnostic category for patients experiencing a narrowing of the arteries who are most likely ultimately to require open heart surgery. An international patient services department at Aventura Hospital assists patients, particularly from Canada, and Central and South America. Aventura Hospital is a member of the Miami Medical Alliance, also known as Salud Miami, which has promoted Miami as a destination for health care. Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart), Mount Sinai, Baptist Hospital (Baptist), South Miami Hospital (South Miami), Miami Children's Hospital and Jackson Memorial Hospital (Jackson Memorial) are among the members of the Alliance. At the time the CON application was filed, Aventura Hospital was scheduled for expansion with the addition of a three-story tower and other capital projects costing an estimated $50 million. Subsequently, in December 2001, Aventura Hospital received approval from HCA for the expenditure of an additional $80 million to build the tower up to nine stories immediately, with the structure capable of ultimately being increased to 12 stories. It is expected to be able to withstand a direct hit from a Class V hurricane. In the past, Aventura Hospital has been entirely evacuated twice due to hurricane warnings. When construction is complete, the ER will be approximately three times larger, relocated to the first floor of the new tower, and projected to receive 50,000 visits annually. Ten new operating rooms on the second floor will include two that are properly-sized for cardiovascular surgeries. Because of higher ceilings in the new tower, the second floor of the new building will connect to the third floor of the existing building, on which the cardiac cath lab and related diagnostic equipment is located. If the open heart program is approved, a ten-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU") will be added to the second floor of the new building, and a second cardiac cath lab will be constructed. A dedicated elevator will connect the surgery suites to a 42-bed intensive care unit ("ICU") on the third floor. The remaining floors will consist of single patient rooms equipped or capable of being equipped for telemetry monitoring. The projected building cost for the portion of the construction related to the open heart surgery program is $3 million. Mount Sinai which purchased Miami Heart from HCA, has agreed to close one of its two open heart surgery programs within one year following the issuance of an adult open heart surgery CON to Aventura Hospital. Otherwise, Mount Sinai is committed to operate both programs for five years from June 30, 2000. Jeffrey Gregg, the head of the CON program at AHCA testified that he believes that it is "unprecedented" for an applicant to submit a letter from an existing provider committing to close a program. (Tr. 3061). Aventura Hospital has also offered to commit to providing 2.5 percent of the patient days generated by the adult open heart surgery program to Medicaid and charity patients. Palmetto General Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Palmetto General Hospital ("Palmetto General") is an applicant for CON No. 9394 to establish an adult open heart surgery program, also in Dade County, AHCA District 11. Palmetto General is a 360-bed acute care hospital located in the City of Hialeah in northwest Dade County at the intersection of 122nd Street, Northwest, and the Palmetto Expressway. Palmetto General is an affiliate of the Tenet Health Care Corporation ("Tenet"), which operates 16 hospitals in Florida, five in Dade County. They are, in addition to Palmetto General, Hialeah Hospital, North Shore Medical Center, Parkway Regional in northern communities, and Coral Gables Hospital in the south. Tenet owns Florida Medical Center, which has an adult open heart surgery program in Broward County. Tenet also operates the open heart program at the Cleveland Clinic in Broward County. The 360 beds at Palmetto General are divided into 253 acute care beds (excluding obstetrics and pediatrics), 48 adult psychiatric beds, and 10 neonatal intensive care beds. Services available on the Palmetto General campus include outpatient imaging and surgery, psychiatry, oncology, rehabilitative therapies, and intensive care. Palmetto General has a staff of 600 physicians, 350 of whom are on the active staff, and 1,500 employees. Palmetto General has approximately 40 cardiologists on staff, 19 of whom are invasive cardiologists. The services available include ultrasound, exercise testing, arrhythmia studies, including halter monitoring and electrophysiology, surgical insertions of pacemakers and defibrillators, and diagnostic cardiac caths. For the 12 months ending June 30, 2001, 1,658 cardiac caths and 668 open heart procedures were performed on patients from the Palmetto General primary service area. At Palmetto General, there were 528 diagnostic cardiac caths performed from April 1999 through March 2000, making it the largest cardiac cath provider in Dade County, which does not also have an open heart program. In calendar year 2001, there were 3,089 cardiovascular disease discharges from Palmetto General. The primary service area for Palmetto General includes the communities of Hialeah, Hialeah Springs, Miami Lakes, and portions of Opa Locka. Approximately 450,000, or 22 percent of the 2.2 million people living in District 11, live in the Hialeah area, over 50,000 are over 65 years old. The 65 and older population in the Palmetto General primary service area is projected to increase by 10 percent by 2005. Seventy to 80 percent of the residents of Palmetto General's primary service area are Hispanic, many first-generation. Most of the staff and employees of Palmetto General are Hispanic or speak Spanish. In addition to Palmetto General, the primary service area includes two other hospitals, Hialeah Hospital and Palm Springs General Hospital ("Palm Springs General"). Of the three, only Palmetto General has a cardiac cath lab. About 400 suspected heart attack patients are treated in the ER at Palmetto General each year. The ER has approximately 60,000 annual visits. It is the third busiest ER in the county. Although the use rate for open heart surgery has been flat or declining throughout the district, it has increased in the Palmetto General service area. While District 11 had an absolute increase of 51 open heart cases from 1999 to 2000, there was a 91-case increase in the Palmetto General service area. Together Palmetto General, Hialeah Hospital, and Palm Springs reported 2,206 IHD discharges, 982 of those from Palmetto General. Subsequent to filing the open heart CON application, Palmetto General developed a $23 million master facility plan of capital expenditures to upgrade the facility in response to operational deficiencies and capacity constraints. Tenet approved the expenditure of $6 million in the first year. When entirely implemented, the plan will result in doubling the size of the ER, expanding maternity labor and delivery areas, building a new 18-bed intensive care unit with space to add ten more beds later, and refurnishing existing operating rooms and adding three more. Palmetto General also, in 2002, experienced significant discord among the medical staff which apparently has been resolved with a change in the hospital's senior management. Palmetto General maintains that its master facility plan is independent of its plans for an open heart surgery program, although the master plan supports and facilitates that proposal. Mount Sinai and Aventura Hospital contend that Palmetto General has impermissibly amended the architectural plans for the open heart surgery program. The plans, as submitted in the CON, showed the addition of two open heart operating rooms on the ground floor, with an area of shelled-in space, and mechanical/electrical space, and part of the roof, above that on the first floor, and an elevator and corridor on the second floor within the same area designated as being within the scope of work. A separate area of work, on the schematic drawing of the second floor, showed a four-bed CVICU. On the master facility plan, the two open heart surgery operating rooms are in the same location but reconfigured. The space above is still shown as shelled-in and it may have columns. On the second floor, the four-bed CVICU for open heart patients is no longer a separate unit but is included in an existing ten- bed CVICU. The CVICU is adjacent to the existing cardiac cath lab and to an area shown for cath lab expansion, previously a part of the roof on the CON drawing. As a result of the use of the existing space for the CVICU, the total area devoted to the open heart program is reduced in size. Although the two open heart operating rooms are reconfigured and the four-bed open heart CVICU will not be an entirely separate unit, the concept for the open heart surgery program is essentially unchanged. Construction detailed drawings of the master plan were expected to be completed in January 2003. If the open heart surgery program CON is approved, Palmetto General will commit to providing 7.5 percent of open heart and angioplasty services to Medicaid and charity care patients. Existing District 11 Providers Baptist, Cedars Medical Center ("Cedars"), Jackson Memorial, Mount Sinai, Miami Heart, Mercy Hospital ("Mercy"), South Miami, and Kendall Medical Center ("Kendall") are the eight hospitals in Dade County which have open heart surgery programs. Mount Sinai and Miami Heart are, as previously noted, both owned by Mount Sinai. They are located within two miles of each other on Miami Beach, near the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Jackson Memorial which, like Mount Sinai, is a University of Miami Medical School teaching hospital is located in downtown Miami, across the street from Cedars and near Mercy. Kendall is further south and west. South Miami and Baptist are in South Central Dade County. In the summer and fall of 2000, when AHCA published the fixed need pool, and Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General filed their applications, four of the eight open heart programs in Dade County were operating at volumes below 350 cases a year. In 1999, those programs and volumes were Cedars, with 340 surgeries, Jackson Memorial with 332, South Miami at 211, and Kendall with 187. In 2001, Cedars increased to 361 open heart cases and Jackson Memorial reported 513. The programs at Kendall and South Miami have continued to operate below 350 cases a year. The volume at Kendall was 184 in 2000, and 295 in 2001. South Miami reported 175 and 148 in calendar years 2000 and 2001, respectively. Like Aventura Hospital, Cedars, and Kendall are owned by HCA. South Miami and Baptist Hospital, which are 3.5 miles apart, are both affiliated with the Baptist health care system. Because volumes were below 350 at existing programs, AHCA published a numeric need for zero additional programs in District 11 for the January 2003 planning horizon. The rule on numeric need, as revised on January 24, 2002, reduced the minimum volume for existing providers to 300 open heart surgeries for the 12-month period specified in the rule, although it implicitly increased the expected size of each existing program to 500 cases by increasing the divisor in the numeric need formula. Under either rule, the applicants must demonstrate the existence of not normal circumstances for the approval of any additional open heart surgery programs in the district. Under the old rule, with 350 as the divisor in the formula, the numeric calculation, before being reduced to zero because of low volume programs, resulted in a need for 2.1 additional programs. That number is a negative one under the new rule. Aventura Hospital projected that its open heart surgery volumes would be 240, 312, and 347 during the first three years of operations, anticipating these to be the years ending in September of 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively. Palmetto General projected volumes of 148, 210, and 250 open heart surgeries and 225, 230, and 310 angioplasties, in the first three years. From 1996 to 2001, the total annual volume of open heart surgeries in District 11 declined by 346, from 3,821 in 1996, to 3,421 in 2000, then increased slightly to 3,475 in 2001. Therefore, if Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General achieve projected volumes, it will result largely from redirecting cases from existing providers including one that would close if Aventura's CON is approved. The declining open heart volumes also reflects a technological improvements and a shift to less invasive angioplasty procedures. The number of angioplasties performed in District 11 increased from 6,384 in 2000, to 7,682 in 2001. Mount Sinai and Miami Heart Mount Sinai is one of six statutory teaching hospitals in Florida, with 19 accredited training programs, including residencies and fellowships. The cardiovascular and thoracic surgery residency program is shared with Jackson Memorial. In addition to the University of Miami, Mount Sinai is affiliated with the medical schools at Nova Southeastern University, Barry University, and the University of South Florida. Mount Sinai has the largest open heart volume in District 11, with over 40 percent of the total volume. It also has the broadest geographical draw for patients, with only 60 percent of the cases originating from the District. In the year from April 1999 to March 2000, Mount Sinai reported performing 1,034 adult open heart surgeries and 4,318 adult inpatient cardiac caths. In calendar years 2000 and 2001, the volume of open heart surgeries at Mount Sinai remained virtually constant at 980 and 976, respectively. Angioplasties increased during that same period of time from 1,037 to 1,067. At Miami Heart, from April 1999 through March 2000, 483 open heart surgeries and 4,179 cardiac caths were performed. The combined total of therapeutic cardiac caths or angioplasties performed at Mount Sinai and Miami Heart is approximately 2,500 a year. There is evidence that Mount Sinai has begun to phase-out open heart cases at Miami Heart where the volume dropped to 390 surgeries in 2000, and to 296 in 2001. In a travel time study commissioned by Mount Sinai, the drive time from Palmetto General ER to Mount Sinai ER was 28 minutes to travel the 15.5 miles. From various zip codes within the Palmetto General service area to the Mount Sinai ER, travel times ranged from 14 minutes to 36 minutes. Driving times from Aventura to Mount Sinai ranged from 18 to 37 minutes. Due to its close proximity, to Mount Sinai, it reasonably should take approximately the same driving time to reach Miami Heart. In an Aventura Hospital survey of transfers of high- risk cardiac patients, the average times were estimated to range from 59 minutes from Aventura Hospital to Mount Sinai and 1 hour and 26 minutes from Aventura Hospital to Miami Heart Institute. Those times must include more than actual drive time, otherwise the differences between Mount Sinai and Miami Heart would not be so significant. One would also anticipate that, while under common ownership, transfers from Aventura Hospital to Miami Heart would have been less cumbersome. The accompanying narrative in the CON suggests that time frames may have been counted from the time the decision to transfer is made to the time the patient arrives at the receiving facility. The testimony regarding the data compilation process was vague and inadequate and, therefore, the conclusions are unreliable. The Mount Sinai study showed travel times of 27 minutes to Miami Heart and 28 minutes to Mount Sinai from Palmetto General. That difference of one minute is confirmed in data underlying Aventura Hospital time travel study. Based on projected volumes, prior transfers, referral patterns and market shares, an open heart program at Palmetto General will reduce the volumes at Mount Sinai and Miami Heart by 92 to 107 open heart surgeries a year, for a financial loss of $1.6 million. An open heart program at Aventura is expected to reduce the combined volume at Mount Sinai and Miami Heart by 196 cases. A combined reduction of approximately 300 cases and the closure of one of the programs would leave the remaining Mount Sinai program at approximately 900 open heart cases, with a loss of $4.7 million. Mount Sinai was projected to experience a net loss from operations of $32 million in 2002. There was testimony that overall financial management and the potential for profitable operations have improved. Despite the fact that an Aventura program will have almost double the adverse impact of one at Palmetto General, Mount Sinai, in the asset purchase agreement resulting in its acquisition of Miami Heart from HCA, agreed not to contest the application filed by Aventura Hospital. Jackson Memorial Jackson Memorial is the hospital designated to provide indigent care in Dade County, through a public health trust funded by a portion of sales taxes. In the 12 months ending March 2000, 334 open heart surgeries and 3,644 cardiac caths were performed at Jackson Memorial. In 2000 and 2001, the open heart volume increased to 438 and 513 surgeries, respectively. The Mount Sinai travel time study, showed that the distance from Palmetto General to Jackson Memorial was 10.7 miles and that the average drive took 22 minutes. Jackson Memorial will lose an estimated 46 cases to Palmetto General, in the third year of an open heart program in 2004, and 12 cases to an Aventura Hospital program, or a combined total of approximately 60 cases a year. Mercy Mercy had a volume of 412 open heart surgeries and 2,704 cardiac caths, from April 1999 through March 2000. In calendar year 2000 and 2001, the open heart volumes at Mercy were 492 and 478, respectively. The average driving time from Palmetto General to Mercy ranged from 24 minutes to 38 minutes, averaging 27 minutes in Mount Sinai's expert's study. If Palmetto General is approved, a reduction of 44 open heart cases is expected at Mercy. An Aventura Hospital program is expected to result in a five-case reduction at Mercy. Cedars The volume at Cedars was 316 open heart cases from April 1999 through March 2000. In calendar years 2000 and 2001, the volume increased to 334 and 361 open heart surgeries, and to 1,323 and 1,468 angioplasties, respectively. The average driving time to Cedars, from Palmetto General, was 23 minutes, in the Mount Sinai travel time study, with a range of drive times from 17 minutes (starting at 4:19 a.m.) to 30 minutes (starting at 7:06 a.m.). If Palmetto General is approved to become an open heart provider, Cedars' volume is expected to be reduced by 20 surgeries. If Aventura Hospital becomes an open heart provider, Cedars' volume will be reduced by an estimated 14 cases. Kendall Kendall had a volume of 180 open heart cases for the year ending March 2000. Kendall has consistently been a low volume open heart provider, increasing from 136 surgeries in 1989, to 295 in 2001. Kendall is located in southwestern Dade County, well beyond the primary service areas of Palmetto General and Aventura Hospital. The common feature shared with Palmetto General is that Kendall is also considered an Hispanic or Spanish-speaking hospital, although every hospital in Dade County is staffed to serve Spanish-speaking patients. Mount Sinai's study found the average drive time from Palmetto General to Kendall to be 23 minutes, covering 14.6 miles. Estimates of case reductions at Kendall are six if Palmetto General is approved and one if Aventura Hospital is approved. South Miami and Baptist South Miami reported a volume of 199 open heart cases for the year ending March 2000. The volume of open heart surgeries has been low, over the years, from 132 in 1989, to 148 in 2001, never exceeding 215 cases in any one year. South Miami has become a referral center for complex, multi-vessel angioplasties. Angioplasties increased, at South Miami, from 723 in 2000, to 837 in 2001. Like Kendall, South Miami and Baptist have no overlap with the primary service areas of Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General. If Palmetto General offers open heart services, then South Miami would lose approximately nine cases in the third year of operations. If Aventura Hospital's CON is approved, then South Miami would lose an estimated two cases that year. The volumes at Baptist, from April 1999 through March 2000, were 472 open heart surgeries and 4,730 cardiac caths. The Baptist volume of open heart cases declined to 428 in 2000, and 408 in 2001. Baptist's volume is expected to decline by 14 cases lost to Palmetto General, and two to Aventura Hospital. Existing District 10 Providers Mount Sinai, in its proposed recommended order, suggested that Memorial Regional, the Cleveland Clinic, and Florida Medical Center all in Broward County, are available open heart providers for northern Dade County residents. Tenet operates the open heart program at the Cleveland Clinic, which is 17 miles north of Palmetto General. The average travel time to the Cleveland Clinic, in the Mount Sinai study, was 26 minutes, but that is unreliable because it includes one run where the driver obviously had to speed, at 4:42 a.m., to average over 60 miles per hour. The staff at Cleveland Clinic is not predominantly Spanish-speaking. The medical staff is also closed so that only Cleveland Clinic doctors practice at that hospital. Patients have interruptions in their continuity of care when referred to an entirely different medical staff. In addition, the Cleveland Clinic is a referral hospital drawing patients from outside the area. It does not function as a community hospital. The Cleveland Clinic is not, therefore, an alternative provider for Dade County residents. At Memorial Regional, six miles north of Aventura Hospital, there were 766 open heart surgeries performed in one 12-month period in 1999 and 2000 and 641 in calendar year 2000. Twenty-six percent of the Aventura Hospital primary service area open heart surgeries were performed at Memorial Regional in 2001, as compared to 5 percent from the Palmetto General Area. Over 30 percent of the angioplasties performed on Aventura Hospital service area residents were performed at Memorial Regional in 2001, and less than 4 percent for Palmetto General service area residents. If Aventura Hospital is approved, the loss in volume from Memorial Regional would be approximately 103 cases a year. Aventura Hospital noted that Memorial Regional has experienced capacity problems. In Columbia Hospital Corporation of South Broward vs. AHCA, the administrative law judge found that the proposal to establish a new hospital in Miramar was intended to " . . . allow Memorial Regional and Memorial West the opportunity to decompress and operate at reasonable and efficient occupancies into the foreseeable future without the operational problems caused by the current over-utilization." There is evidence that the relief resulting from the construction of the Miramar Hospital, will not alter the difficulties that Aventura Hospital-based doctors experience in gaining access to the cardiac cath lab at Memorial Regional. Florida Medical Center has approximately 450 open heart surgery cases a year. It is a Tenet facility in Western Broward County. The financial data from Florida Medical Center was used in Palmetto General's projections of income and expenses, but there was no evidence that Florida Medical Center's open heart program is a viable alternative to programs at either Aventura Hospital or Palmetto General. Review Criteria Subsection 408.035(1) - need in relation to applicable district health plan; 59C-1.030(2)(a)-(e) - need that the population has, particularly low income, ethnic minorities, elderly, etc.; relocation of a service; needs of medically underserved, Medicare, Medicaid and indigent persons; and Subsection 408.035(11) - past and proposed Medicaid and indigent care. The District 11 health plan includes preferences for applicants seeking to provide tertiary services who have provided the highest Medicaid and charity care, and who have demonstrated the highest ongoing commitment to Medicaid and indigent patients. Aventura Hospital provided approximately 1 percent charity, 6 to 7 percent Medicaid and 17 percent Medicare in 2001. It qualified as a disproportionate share Medicare hospital. Aventura Hospital's proposed CON commitment is to provide a minimum of 2.5 percent of open heart surgery and angioplasty patient days to Medicaid and charity patients. Palmetto General is and, for at least the last ten years, has been a disproportionate share Medicaid and Medicare provider. Over 20 percent of the total care at Palmetto General has been given to Medicaid patients in recent fiscal years. The care to indigent patients was approximately $8 million in one year. In this regard, Palmetto serves as a "safety net" hospital for poor people, like Jackson Memorial and Mount Sinai. Palmetto General will meet the needs of ethnic minorities, and more Medicaid, low income and indigent patients. Aventura Hospital is serving an older population and, in effect, would be relocating an open heart program from Miami Heart. In a service like open heart surgery, Medicare is the dominant payor. Subsection 408.035(2) - availability, quality of care, accessibility, extent of utilization of existing facilities in the district; Rule 59C-1.033(4)(a) - two-hour travel time; and Subsection 408.035(7) - enhanced access for residents of the district. The applicants contend that the existing programs in the district are geographically maldistributed to the detriment of the residents of northeast and northwest Dade County. They also contend that those access issues outweigh the fact that district residents can reach open heart providers within the two- hour travel time standard in the open heart rule. In its proposed recommended order, Mount Sinai noted that if Dade County is divided in half using " . . . State Road 836 (also known as the Palmetto Expressway), which runs east-west in the center of the County, near Miami International Airport . . . ," there are four existing open heart providers in the north and four in the south. This statement must be inaccurate because Palmetto General's location was described as being on the Palmetto Expressway with no existing open heart providers in the same service area. The existing programs in District 11 are inappropriately dispersed geographically to serve the population, as it is distributed throughout Dade County. The Hialeah area, with 22 percent of the population, is larger than 14 counties in Florida which have at least one open heart surgery program. The population in the Aventura Hospital primary service area, 250,000 residents, is roughly half that of Hialeah, but is equal to or larger than five counties in Florida which have open heart surgery programs. If the applicants' patients are not transferred to other hospitals, then the volume of open heart procedures at those hospitals will decline. The medical literature and experts in the field demonstrate a relationship between volume and quality. In Florida, the old rule and new rule set the minimums for existing providers at 350 and 300, respectively. If Aventura Hospital's open heart CON is approved, almost 200 surgeries will be lost from Miami Heart and Mount Sinai, approximately half of that from the program that will be closed, and just over 100 from Memorial Regional. The effect on the low volume providers will be negligible, one lost case to Kendall and two from South Miami. Based on its projections, Aventura Hospital expects to reach 347 open heart surgeries in its third year of operation. Even assuming that most of the cases would be redirected from other providers, the projection is aggressively based on the assumption that Aventura Hospital will have a market share of 87 percent of its primary service area. If Palmetto General's open heart CON is approved, the greatest impact will also be on Mount Sinai and Miami Heart, a loss of approximately 100 surgeries a year, and on Jackson Memorial, a loss of 46 surgeries a year. Palmetto General projected that it would reach a volume of 250 open heart surgeries by the end of the third year of operations. South Miami would lose nine and Kendall would lose six open heart cases. Neither an Aventura nor a Palmetto area program will keep the existing low volume providers below 300 or 350 open heart surgeries. With or without them, South Miami and Kendall are expected to continue to operate below the objective set by the open heart rule. The absence of a material adverse impact on low volume providers is the result of the absence of any overlap in the service areas of the applicants and South Miami and Kendall. In District 11, only Cedars is likely to end up having open heart surgery volumes in a range between 300 and 350 cases as a result of the approval of both programs. Difficulties and delays in patient transfers for open heart or angioplasty services were raised as possible not normal circumstances in Dade County. Aventura Hospital witnesses presented anecdotal evidence of patients who could have benefited from the availability of angioplasty and open heart case without transfers. The evidence was inadequate to demonstrate that access to existing facilities is not available within a reasonable time. Palmetto General provided a review of medical charts to show patients whose outcomes would have been improved if it had an open heart program. Physicians who testified about those patients differed in their conclusions concerning the urgency of transfers, the need for primary angioplasty or thrombolytics, and the causes of delays. No medical records indicated patient outcomes after they were transferred. Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General also contend that the residents of their primary service area are at a disadvantage by not having timely access to primary angioplasty for patients who are having heart attacks. Treatment in their ERs is limited to administering thrombolytic or clot-busting drugs in an effort to save heart muscle. Increasingly, research has shown the benefits of primary angioplasty over thrombolytics as the most effective treatment to restore blood flow to heart muscle. The benefits include lower mortality rates and few complications, and are enhanced if the "door-to-balloon" time is less than 90 minutes. In Dade County, transfer times typically range from two to five hours, including the time to contact a receiving facility, to find a receiving physician, to receive insurance authorization, to summon an ambulance, and to prepare the patient medically for transfer, as well as the actual travel time. Research also shows that the quality of an open heart surgery program continues to be linked to its volume. In Florida, AHCA has not revised its rules either to provide for angioplasty services without open heart surgery back-up, or to reduce the tertiary designation of open heart surgery programs. Therefore, the need for more timely access to angioplasty is rejected as a not normal access issue. Palmetto General, due to operational difficulties is unlikely to meet the 90-minute reperfusion goal. In fact, most hospitals with open heart programs do not. Palmetto General does not plan to construct a second cardiac cath lab for use at the time it establishes an open heart program. Mount Sinai witnesses questioned the ability of a hospital with one cath lab to provide emergency primary angioplasty services. An additional cath lab is not required in the open heart rule and, while difficulties in scheduling are likely to occur, successful open heart programs have been operated with one cath lab initially, including Tenet-operated Delray Medical Center. Palmetto General can, when needed, construct a second cardiac cath lab in approximately six months without CON review. AHCA has not revised the open heart surgery rule to respond to the development of primary angioplasty as a preferred treatment. By its adoption of a new rule maintaining the link between angioplasty and open heart surgery, and maintaining the tertiary nature of open heart surgery, AHCA has placed the State of Florida on the side of the debate which is more concerned about the link between volumes and quality in open heart programs. Palmetto General also attempted to demonstrate the existence of access constraints at Jackson Memorial. The evidence showed discrepancies in lengths of stay, with indigent patients generally hospitalized longer. But those discrepancies were subject to other interpretations, including the possibility that indigent patients are more sick because lengths of stay were longer before and after indigent patients are transferred to and from Jackson Memorial. The maldistribution of open heart programs in Dade County as compared to the areas of significant population growth is a not normal circumstance affecting the availability, access, extent of utilization, and quality of care of existing facilities in the district. The commitment to the closure of an existing program is also a not normal circumstance in favor of the Aventura Hospital proposal. Subsection 408.035(3) - applicant's quality of care; Rule 59C- 1.030(2)(f) - accessibility of facility as a whole; Subsection 408.035(10) - costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated that both Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General have a record of providing quality care with regard to the scope and intensity of services provided historically, and that both are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. The parties also stipulated that both applicants can establish quality perfusion services and recruit qualified perfusionists at the costs identified in their applications. Palmetto General failed to identify any surgeons who would staff their proposed open heart program. Two cardiac surgeons in a group which submitted a letter of interest included in the Palmetto General CON application were killed in a car accident a month before the final hearing. While the absence of named surgeons affects the certainty of referrals, there is no requirement, in AHCA rules, that surgeons be named in CON applications. One board-certified and a second at least board-eligible surgeon must be on the hospital staff if it starts an open heart program. Tenet has the resources and the senior management at Palmetto General has the experience to recruit qualified medical and nursing staff. The plan for a four-bed CVICU at Palmetto General was criticized as allocating too few beds for open heart surgery patients. Using the normile statistical methodology, one expert witness testified that a six-bed CVICU is required to accommodate the expected patient census in the third year of an open heart program. Using an average daily census of 1.43 patients and a target occupancy rate of 70 percent in the four-bed CVICU, however, only two beds are needed in the first year. Subsequently, as needed, acute care beds may be converted to ICU beds without CON review. Subsection 408.035(4) - needs that are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. Mount Sinai contends that the residents of the Aventura and Hialeah areas reasonably and economically receive open heart services in Broward County. The statistical data and evidence of capacity constraints, even after the Miramar hospital is constructed, and the closure of one of the programs that residents of the Aventura Hospital primary service area have relied on and its relocation to their area, is more appropriate than increasing their reliance on Memorial Regional. The evidence does not demonstrate that the residents of the Palmetto General service area have reasonable access to Cleveland Clinic, Memorial Regional or any other Broward County hospital with an open heart surgery program. Subsection 408.035(5) - needs of research and educational facilities. Aventura Hospital is not a statutory teaching hospital. It does have podiatry, nursing, and occupational and physical therapy students training at the hospital. Residents and interns from the primary care program at Nova Southeastern University, from the Barry University School of Podiatry, and area nursing and technical schools receive some of their training at Palmetto General. Although one rating service places Palmetto General in the category of a teaching hospital, it is not a statutory teaching hospital. A program at Aventura Hospital will have a greater adverse effect on Mount Sinai, while one at Palmetto General will have a greater adverse effect on Jackson Memorial. Both Mount Sinai and Jackson Memorial are statutory teaching hospitals. Subsection 408.035(6) - management personnel and funds for project accomplishment; Subsection 408.035(8) - immediate and long term financial feasibility. Both Aventura Hospital and Palmetto General have adequate funds and experienced management to establish open heart surgery programs. In the pre-hearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the applicants have sufficient available funds for capital and operating expenses to initiate open heart surgery programs and to operate the programs, in the short term, until financially self- sufficient. Aventura Hospital reasonably projected net profits of approximately $543,000 from an open heart program in the first year of operation, and $1 million in the second year. Aventura Hospital reasonably relied on the experiences of other HCA open heart providers in the area, particularly Miami Heart and JFK Medical Center in Palm Beach County. Mount Sinai questioned the reasonableness of Palmetto General's projection that it will generate higher profits than Aventura Hospital with lower case volumes. It also questioned Palmetto General's ability to attain the volumes projected. Palmetto General projected a net profit of just over $700,000 in the first year, $1.18 million in the second year, and $1.5 million in the third year, with 148 open heart cases in the first year, 210 in the second year, and 250 in the third year. By comparison, Aventura Hospital's first three-year projections for open hearts were 240, 312, and 347. Aventura's projected volume was potentially overstated in view of the experience at HCA facility Columbia Westside in Broward County which has achieved approximately half the open hearts projected. But the differences in projections reasonably reflect Aventura's draw from a smaller but older population and Palmetto General's draw from a larger, poorer but younger population. Palmetto General's projected volumes are reasonable considerating the number of actual open heart surgeries, 668, originating from its primary service area in the 12-months ending in June 2001. Palmetto General reasonably and conservatively based its reimbursement rates on those received at Florida Medical Center in Broward County, which actually has a lower reimbursement rate than Dade County. Mount Sinai also demonstrated that charges at three South Florida Tenet facilities, Delray Medical Center, North Ridge Medical Center, and Florida Medical Center were significantly higher than those at Mount Sinai. But those facilities operate successfully in competitive markets in Districts 9 and 10, which supports the testimony that, for open heart surgery, charges are not very relevant. Most compensation is derived from fixed-rate reimbursement from Medicare. Subsection 408.035(9) - extent to which proposal fosters competition that promotes quality and cost effectiveness. In the District, HCA, the parent of Aventura Hospital, after the sale of Miami Heart, continues to operate Cedars, which has exceeded 350 cases for the first time in 2001, and Kendall, which at 295 cases in 2001, has been a chronically low volume open heart provider. That would raise doubts about the projected volumes at Aventura Hospital, but for the demographics of its location and the closure and, in effect, proposed relocation of the Miami Heart program to a more geographically appropriate area of the District. The relocation, therefore, makes the proposal a "wash" resulting in no net increase in programs or competition in the District. By contrast, the approval of a program operated by Tenet which has five Dade County hospitals, none with an open heart program, does introduce a new provider into the market in a location with special needs due to the larger critical mass of people, their ethnicity, relative poverty and fewer, more distant alternate open heart providers. Subsection 408.035(12) - nursing home beds. The criterion related to nursing home beds, by stipulation of the parties, is inapplicable to this case. Summary of Findings On balance, Palmetto General is preferable as the hospital with the larger critical mass of population, the status as a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid and Medicare, the improved geographical access for a large ethnic group with relatively high IHD and heavy demands for services, including cardiac care services in its ER and in the ERs of other hospitals within its primary service area. In addition, the detriment to existing providers, predominantly Mount Sinai and Jackson Memorial will not reduce the volumes below 350 open heart cases. On balance, the Aventura Hospital proposal, while less compelling, because it is not a Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, is not a new entrant to the market, and has a population which is half that in the Palmetto General primary service is also entirely approvable. The hospital has facilities superior to those at Palmetto General. It is better prepared to implement an open heart program, with plans to open a second cardiac cath lab immediately and with the cardiothoracic surgeons identified for the program. Within its service area population, Aventura Hospital has a large population of elderly people, who present to its hospital with symptoms of heart attacks. The troubling adverse impact on Memorial Regional is offset by the evidence of crowding and scheduling difficulties specifically in the Memorial Regional cardiac cath lab. The troubling adverse impact on the combined Miami Heart and Mount Sinai programs is offset by the Asset Purchase Agreement which contemplated the relocation of at least a portion of the Miami Heart cases to Aventura Hospital. Even with the additional loss of 100 open heart cases to Palmetto General, Mount Sinai will remain the largest Dade County provider, retaining from 900 to 1,000 annual open heart cases. The approval of both applications will improve access to open heart surgery and angioplasty care in District 11.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered issuing CON Application No. 9394 to Lifemark Hospitals of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Palmetto General Hospital, and CON Application No. 9395 to Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Aventura Hospital and Medical Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Sandra L. Schoonover, Esquire Blank, Meenan & Smith, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11068 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3068 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
The Issue Whether the proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), the "open heart rule", constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On January 18, 1991, HRS published proposed rule changes (the "Proposed Amendments") to Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, No. 3 at page 163. These consolidated cases were brought pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, to challenge these Proposed Amendments to the administrative rules for the Certificate of Need program. As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand the background of the rule and the Proposed Amendments. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), regulates the provision of open heart surgery throughout the eleven HRS service districts in Florida. HRS' stated purpose in promulgating the Proposed Amendments was to "clarify" certain provisions of the existing rule. The original version of the open heart surgery rule was drafted in 1982, and was modeled after the National Guidelines for Health Planning, (hereinafter the "National Guidelines"). At the time the existing rule was adopted, the Florida Certificate of Need Program closely tracked the National Guidelines. Prior to adopting the existing rule, HRS reviewed the relevant literature regarding open heart surgery programs. In addition, a task force was convened to review numerous issues, including certain criticisms received from the health care industry that the National Guidelines were too restrictive. In 1985, the open heart rule was amended in response to evidence demonstrating that the incidence rate of adult open heart surgery had increased. The rule was amended to project need based upon the actual use rate experienced. The amended rule provided that the use rate would be adjusted for every batch of applications based on the most recent twelve month data available. In 1987, the open heart surgery rule was challenged by St. Mary's pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The primary issue in that rule challenge was whether the 350 minimum volume operations standard in the rule was too high. Following a three day hearing which included the presentation of extensive expert testimony, the rule was declared to be a valid exercise of delegated authority. See, St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 87-2729R, 9 F.A.L.R. 6159. (This subject matter is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 91-92 below.) In 1989, HRS published what it considered to be proposed technical amendments to the open heart surgery rule to resolve certain issues regarding the publication of the fixed need pool and to clarify some other aspects of the rule. No work group was convened for these proposals because HRS did not consider the proposed changes to be substantive. However, a number of challenges were filed to the proposed rule amendments. In April of 1990, HRS decided to withdraw the amendments and seek further input from the health care industry and other affected persons regarding possible changes to the rule. A work group (the "Work Group") was convened on June 18, 1990 to discuss the issues raised in the various challenges to the 1989 proposed rule amendments and to consider other matters raised by the various industry representatives and other concerned parties. Representatives from numerous Florida hospitals, as well as representatives from the Association of Voluntary Hospitals, the Florida League of Hospitals and the Florida Hospital Association participated in the Work Group. The participants included hospitals that have open heart surgery programs and those that do not, including several who had applied or who have an interest in offering those services. The minutes of the Work Group Meeting were transcribed and are contained in the rule promulgation file which was accepted into evidence as HRS Exhibit 5. Elfie Stamm, the HRS planner primarily responsible for the original development and subsequent amendments of the open heart surgery rule was an active participant in the Work Group. She also oversaw the development of Volume 3 of the State Health Plan in 1988 and 1989. This volume deals with certificate of need matters and contains detailed research and analysis of open heart surgery trends and developments. Thus, Ms. Stamm was very familiar with the issues and current research in the area. Based upon the evidence deduced during the Work Group Meeting and a review of the research in the area, HRS decided to promulgate the Proposed Amendments which it considered to be "technical" changes to the rule that were intended to not change the impact on current and prospective providers. HRS specifically decided not to make any changes that would modify the current overall need projections. Prior to publication, the Proposed Amendments were circulated for internal review, approval and signoff, and were sent to the House Health Care Committee and the Senate HRS Committee. The Proposed Amendments were also sent to all the members of the Work Group, who were advised that it would be published on January 18, 1991. As noted above, the Proposed Amendments were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 18, 1991. Only one public comment (dated January 24, 1991, and received by HRS on January 28, 1991,) was submitted in response to the January 18, 1991 publication of the Proposed Amendments. That comment suggested clarifying language to Subparagraph 7(a) II of the Proposed Amendments. In response to this letter, HRS caused to be published a Notice of Change in the February 1, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The January 18, 1991 Notice provided that a public hearing on the Proposed Amendments would be conducted on February 11, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. if requested. No public hearing was requested and, therefore, none was held. St. Mary's has insinuated that the Notice was somehow deficient because the public hearing was scheduled more than 21 days after the notice of rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The evidence indicates that such scheduling is customary in order to assure that a request can be made right up until the last possible moment without the necessity of holding two public hearings. Overview of the Proposed Amendments Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f) is a new section entitled "Departmental Intent." This section states that certificates of need for open heart surgery programs will not normally be approved unless the applicant meets the relevant statutory criteria, including the need determination criteria in the rule. This Section also provides that separate certificates of need will be required in order to establish either an adult or pediatric open heart surgery program. As discussed in more detail below, the existing rule does not expressly state that separate CONs must be obtained to implement adult and pediatric programs. The proposed rule amendments do not specifically address the provision of adult and pediatric open heart surgery within the same program. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)2 sets forth several new definitions. Subparagraph 2j establishes for the first time pediatric open heart service areas which are made up of combined HRS districts and are thus much larger than adult open heart service areas. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)3 mandates that pediatric open heart surgery programs must have the same services and procedures as adult programs, including intraaortic balloon assists. Subparagraph 3c requires that pediatric open heart surgery programs shall only be located in hospitals with inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)4 contains the travel time standard which applies to adult open heart surgery service accessibility, and the maximum waiting period for open heart surgery team mobilization for adult and pediatric programs. There is no travel time standard for pediatric services in the Proposed Amendments. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)4d requires applicants for adult or pediatric open heart surgery programs to document the manner in which they will provide open heart surgery to all persons in need. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)7 is entitled "Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination". Subparagraph (a) essentially recodifies and restates existing Rule 10-5.011(f)11 and provides that each and every adult open heart surgery program within a district should be performing 350 adult open heart surgery operations per year prior to there being a calculated net need for a new program in that district. The section does not contain an explanation or delineation of "not normal" circumstances that HRS will consider in the absence of a net numeric need. Currently, Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11., provides: There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless: The service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year. As discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 89-97 below, from approximately early 1985 through January 22, 1990, HRS interpreted this section to require that the volume of procedures provided by all existing programs in each service district be averaged to determine whether need existed for a new open heart surgery program (the "averaging method"). This averaging method allowed HRS to find numeric need when the average total of procedures per program in the district equaled 350 or more. After this interpretation was rejected in several cases, HRS abandoned the "averaging" approach and has been requiring "each and every" existing program in a district to meet the 350 minimum standard before a new adult program will normally be approved. Subparagraph (b) of Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)7 mandates that only one program shall be approved at a time, and contains the numeric need calculation formula for adult open heart surgery programs. Subparagraph (c) states that, regardless of whether need is shown according to the formula, if an incoming provider will reduce an existing provider's volume below 350, the applicant will not normally be approved. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)8 contains a new method for calculating need for pediatric open heart surgery programs. Pursuant to this proposal, need would be calculated based on the number of resident live births in a pediatric open heart surgery program service area. The proposal would require at least 30,000 resident live births per pediatric program. The economic impact statement (EIS) which accompanied the Proposed Amendments states that, other than administrative and word processing costs, there will be no additional annual or operating costs associated with the implementation of the Proposed Amendments. The EIS contains no statement of the impact upon potential applicants or existing providers due to the changes in either the adult or pediatric portions of the rule. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A SEPARATE CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR AN ADULT OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAM AND PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAM. The existing rule does not expressly require separate certificate of need applications for pediatric and adult open heart surgery programs. However, HRS' policy for at least the last year has been to require hospitals to obtain separate certificates of need for adult open heart surgery programs and pediatric open heart surgery programs. See Findings of Fact 135 below. In other words, the proposed amendment codifies HRS' current interpretation of the existing rule. The Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Amendments examined the issue of whether HRS should require hospitals to obtain separate CONs for adult open heart surgery programs and pediatric open heart surgery programs. In addition, HRS reviewed the available literature, including the National Guidelines and the Guidelines for Pediatric Cardiology Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (hereinafter the "Pediatric Guidelines"). Comments were also solicited from the Children's Medical Services Program Office which regulates certain aspects of pediatric cardiac surgery. Based upon a review of this information, HRS concluded that (1) pediatric and adult open heart surgery programs are generally and properly operated as separately organized programs and (2) pediatric programs are and should be staffed by personnel specially trained to provide pediatric care. There are significant differences between providing open heart surgery to adults and providing open heart surgery to children. Adults generally have acquired heart disease, while children generally have congenital heart problems. The transfer process and approach to open heart surgery differs between adults and children. Pediatric open heart patients are more labile in certain situations than adult open heart surgery patients. People who work with adult open heart surgery patients often lack the ability to work with pediatric open heart surgery patients. In sum, the evidence established that pediatric open heart surgery is a complex service which requires a team dedicated to that service. With the possible exception of one program, all the pediatric open heart surgery programs in Florida are offered in separately organized programs. The incidence rate of pediatric open heart surgery is significantly lower than that for adult open heart surgery. The latest data reflects that from October 1989 to September 1990 there were only 545 pediatric heart surgeries performed in the state of Florida as compared to nearly 21,000 adult open heart surgeries during the same period. Nothing in the Proposed Amendments prohibits an applicant from applying for both adult and pediatric open heart surgery. The rule does have separate requirements, including separate need methodologies, which would normally have to be satisfied as a predicate to the award of either program. St. Mary's voiced a concern that the Economic Impact Statement did not address the additional costs to applicants, (i.e. duplicate application fees) that will result from this provision of the Proposed Amendments which requires separate certificates of need for adult and pediatric programs. As noted above, such costs are already necessary under HRS' interpretation of the existing rules. In any event, St. Mary's has not demonstrated that such additional costs would be other than minimal. WHETHER THE CLASSIFICATION OF OPEN-HEART SURGERY BY THE DIAGNOSTIC RELATED GROUPS LISTED IN SUB-PARAGRAPH 2.g. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS VAGUE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. Subparagraph 2.g. of the proposed amendments reads as follows: "Open Heart Surgery Operation". Surgery assisted with a heart-lung by-pass machine that is used to treat conditions such as congenital heart defects, heart and coronary artery diseases, including replacement of heart valves, cardiac vascularization, and cardiac trauma. One open heart surgery operation equals one patient admission to the operating room. Open heart surgery operations are classified under the following diagnostic related groups: DRGs 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110. Diagnostic related groups or "DRGs", are a health service classification system used by the Medicare System. The existing rule does not include the reference to DRG classifications. Some confusion had been expressed by applicants as to whether certain organ transplant operations which utilized a bypass machine during the operation should be reported as open heart operations or as organ transplantation operations. The amendment was intended to clarify that only when the operation utilizes the bypass machine and falls within one of the enumerated categories should it be considered an open heart surgery operation. The inclusion of the listed DRGs was meant to clarify the existing definition by limiting the DRG categories within which open heart surgery services may be classified. There is no dispute that the primary factor in defining an open heart surgery procedure is the use of a heart-lung machine. Florida Hospital argued that the proposed definition is ambiguous and vague because not all procedures which fit into the listed DRG categories necessarily involve open heart surgery. Florida Hospital's fear that the new language would seem to indicate that each procedure falling into the listed DRGs qualifies as an open heart surgery operation is unfounded. While the provision could have been written in a simpler and clearer manner, the definition adequately conveys the intent that the use of a heart-lung by-pass machine is an essential element to classifying an operation as open-heart surgery. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 2.j. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHES PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SERVICE AREAS WHICH ARE LARGER THAN ADULT OPEN HEART SERVICE AREAS WHICH MAY RESULT IN DEPRIVATION OF NEEDED OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAMS IN SOME SERVICE AREAS. The Proposed Amendments will regulate pediatric open heart surgery on a regional basis. Five "Services Areas" are created by combining HRS service districts. In establishing these Service Areas, HRS considered the extent to which patients would have geographic access to pediatric open heart surgery services. The Service Areas were organized geographically in a manner intended to result in one pediatric open heart surgery program in each Service Area. Section 20.19(7), Florida Statutes, provides that "[t]he Department shall plan and administer its programs of health, social, and rehabilitative services through service districts and subdistricts ... ." This statute sets forth the geographic composition of each district and subdistrict through which HRS is to administer its programs. Section 20.19(7)(a), Florida Statutes. St. Mary's contends that no statutory authority exists for combining "service districts" to create "service areas." However, no prohibition against combining districts for tertiary services exists in the statute and, indeed, the nature of tertiary services mandates such an approach in some instances. As indicated below, HRS has combined districts for other programs. Section 381.702(20) defines "tertiary health services" and authorizes HRS to establish by rule a list of tertiary health services. Tertiary health care services are complex services which involve high consumption of hospital resources. Due to the low incidence of those medical conditions which require tertiary services, there is a benefit in limiting those services to select facilities in order to maximize volume at those facilities. This approach is known as the regionalization of health care services. HRS has promulgated a list of tertiary health services in Rule 10- 5.002(66) (previously 10-5.002(40), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection 9 of this Rule includes "neonatal and pediatric cardiac and vascular surgery." Thus, pediatric open heart surgery is a tertiary health care service. HRS regulates other tertiary services, including burn units, organ transplants programs, and pediatric cardiac catheterization services, on a regional basis. See e.g., Rules 10-5.043, and 5.044 Florida Administrative Code. Regionalization of tertiary services at a central point has been used by HRS to encourage an appropriate volume level at each center. The evidence established that there is a correlation between volume and outcome in pediatric open heart programs. HRS has concluded that pediatric open heart surgery should be limited to and concentrated in a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of the service. No persuasive evidence was presented to rebut this conclusion. The evidence indicates that pediatric open heart surgery services are currently delivered in Florida on a regional basis. A limited number of hospitals scattered throughout the state are serving the state's population. Of the eight hospitals which are included among the HRS inventory of hospitals providing pediatric open heart surgery services, only 5 perform a significant volume of cases. Each of those five hospitals is either a teaching hospital or a specialty pediatric hospital. The other three hospitals listed on the inventory have large adult open heart surgery programs, but perform a very low volume of pediatric cases. The evidence did not establish that the existing providers are currently unable to meet the need for services in the state. Based upon a review of the existing research and literature, HRS has concluded that a facility should perform approximately 100 pediatric heart surgeries annually in order to retain proficiency. As discussed in Findings of Fact 132 below, the 30,000 annual live births standard will, over time, result in approximately 100-130 pediatric open heart surgery cases per year among the population base from birth to age 21. In Service Area 1, the resident live births in 1988 were 16,142. (Service Area 1 combines HRS Districts 1 and 2.) Thus, the number of live births in this Service Area would have to almost double before a new program could meet this standard. While Petitioners object to this result, no persuasive evidence was presented to establish that HRS has acted arbitrarily in establishing the Service Area. The rule requires a pediatric program in each Service Area. However, only one of the Service Areas established by this Proposed Amendment meets the 30,000 live birth standard. St. Mary's contends that this discrepancy renders the proposed amendment internally inconsistent. However, there are significant countervailing considerations which militate against closing an existing program and justify the continuation of established programs in these areas. These considerations include the need to insure geographic access, the reluctance to disturb existing referral patterns and a reluctance to disturb programs with demonstrated proficiency. The HRS Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Amendments addressed the issue of regulating pediatric open heart surgery services on a regional basis. No persuasive evidence was presented in opposition to this approach. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT REQUIRES SERVICES AND PROCEDURES WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARY TO THE SAFE EFFECTIVE PROVISION OF PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. The Proposed Amendments will require hospitals seeking to provide pediatric open heart surgery to have the ability to provide certain specified services. The requirements contained in paragraph 3 of the Proposed Amendments are the same as those contained in the existing rule. They are considered by HRS to be minimum standards for the provision of both adult and pediatric open heart surgery. The evidence established that it is desirable to have those services available, even if they are infrequently used. Dr. Byron testified that some of the procedures such as intra-aortic balloon assists, prolonged myocardial bypass and the repair and replacement of heart valves are performed less commonly in children. However, he did agree that these procedures are occasionally necessary and a pediatric program should have the ability to provide those services. Requiring a pediatric open heart program to have the capability to provide those services if necessary is consistent with the goal of regionalization of pediatric open heart surgery. There was no adverse public comment received during development of the Proposed Amendments regarding these requirements and no persuasive testimony or other evidence was offered during the Work Group or the hearing in this cause to establish that these minimum requirements are not appropriate and/or should be deleted. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 3c VI OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO BE AWARDED A PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART PROGRAM THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO HAVE PEDIATRIC CARDIAC CATH, CREATES A "CATCH 22" WHEN READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CARDIAC CATH RULE WHICH REQUIRES AN APPLICANT FOR PEDIATRIC CARDIAC CATH TO OFFER PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART, AND IS THEREFORE INVALID. The Proposed Amendments require that in order to be awarded a certificate of need for a pediatric open heart surgery program, an applicant must have a pediatric cardiac catheterization ("cardiac cath") program. A similar requirement can be implied from the current open heart surgery rule and, indeed, HRS has interpreted the current rule is this manner. The cardiac cath rule requires that an applicant for a pediatric cardiac cath program must have a pediatric open heart surgery program. The Services Areas and the need methodologies in the proposed pediatric portion of the open heart surgery rule and the amended pediatric portion of the cardiac catheterization rule are the same. St. Mary's contention that applicants are placed in a "Catch 22" is rejected. If a facility wants to offer pediatric open heart, it is going to have to simultaneously apply for cardiac cath. There is nothing in this section, or anywhere else in the rule, which prohibits an applicant from applying for pediatric cardiac cath and pediatric open heart contemporaneously. In fact, such a simultaneous application is exactly what HRS is trying to encourage. The two services, pediatric open heart and pediatric cardiac cath, should only be offered in combination with each other. St. Mary's own witness, Dr. Harry Byron, a pediatric cardiologist, agreed that a facility that offers an open heart surgery program in pediatrics should also have pediatric cardiac cath capabilities. Every facility in the state of Florida which provides pediatric cardiac cath also provides pediatric open heart surgery. During the hearing, it was suggested that Hollywood Memorial Hospital is performing pediatric open heart without offering pediatric cardiac cath. However, an examination of the CON issued to Hollywood Memorial reveals that it was awarded both services simultaneously. St. Mary's contends that the Proposed Amendments to the open heart rule are deficient because they cross-reference the cardiac cath rules and there is some question as to the status of the cardiac cath rules. St. Mary's argues that HRS' predecessor cardiac catheterization rule is the current cardiac catheterization rule because proposed amendments to the cardiac cath rule were prevented from becoming final as the result of timely challenges. As best can be determined from the evidence in this case, there is no inconsistency between the Proposed Amendments and the cardiac cath rules. The evidence regarding the status of the cardiac cath rules was inconclusive. Amendments to the cardiac cath rule were published on April 22, 1988, but never became effective because of rule challenges which were eventually settled. When the rule amendments were republished on July 29, 1988 with certain agreed upon changes, timely challenges brought pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, prevented those changes from becoming effective. However, the Final Order in the case challenging the procedural adequacy of the July 29, 1988 amendments upheld a large portion of that proposed rule, including the sections pertinent to this case. See, Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 88-3970R (DOAH Final Order entered June 30, 1989). Thus, it appears that St. Mary's contention is without merit. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.a. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN A TRAVEL TIME STANDARD FOR PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SURGERY. The Proposed Amendments do not contain a travel time standard for pediatric open heart surgery services. St. Mary's contends that the proposed rule should include a travel time standard for pediatric patients who need emergency procedures. There is no dispute that the longer a pediatric patient has to wait to have open heart surgery, the greater the chance of a negative outcome. Moreover, transporting pediatric patients is often more complicated and dangerous than transporting an adult patient because infants are more labile and closer attention must be paid to their glucose levels, to the environmental temperature and similar matters. In the course of its deliberations concerning the Proposed Amendments, HRS considered whether it should include a travel time standard relating to pediatric open heart surgery. No persuasive evidence was presented to HRS during the rule development process that an appropriate travel time standard could or should be adopted. HRS elected not to provide for a travel time standard out of concern that such standard would have suggested a "need" for programs in geographic areas which would not generate a sufficient case load to allow the program to maintain proficiency. A travel time standard such as that contained in the rule for the provision of adult open heart surgery programs would not be appropriate for the provision of pediatric open heart surgery programs because of the highly tertiary nature of the service. Had HRS used a two-hour travel time standard for pediatrics as it did for adult open heart, a need may have been shown for more programs than the volume of operations could support, resulting in programs with lower volumes than desired from a quality of care standpoint. Some pediatric patients in need of open heart surgery may have to travel as much as six hours by car if the need methodologies and Service Areas in the Proposed Amendments are adopted. In most instances, however, the travel time would be substantially less and most areas of the state will be within two to three hours by car to a pediatric open heart surgery center. Geographical location was one of the factors considered in the establishment of the Service Areas. However, the need to insure an adequate volume of cases for each program was an overriding concern. While it is certainly desirable to minimize travel and distance for pediatric patients as much as possible, these concerns must be counterbalanced against the need to insure that each center performs enough procedures to maintain proficiency. The evidence was insufficient to establish that HRS was arbitrary and/or capricious in dealing with these sometimes conflicting goals. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.c. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REQUIRING TEAM MOBILI- ZATION FOR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS WITHIN A MAXIMUM WAITING PERIOD OF TWO HOURS IS CONTRARY TO THE EXCLUSION OF A TRAVEL TIME STANDARD FOR PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. As indicated above, there is no travel time standard for pediatric open heart surgery in the Proposed Amendments. There is, however, a requirement that a hospital be able to mobilize an open heart surgery team within a maximum time limit of two hours. Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)4. The purpose of the team mobilization standard is to assure rapid mobilization within the hospital once the baby has arrived at the hospital. This requirement is contained in the existing open heart rule and no adverse public comment was received regarding it. St. Mary's contends that having a two hour team mobilization standard for pediatric open heart surgery but no travel time standard for pediatric patients is inconsistent and reflects a disregard for pediatric accessibility or geographic accessibility. This criticism is rejected. The emergency mobilization standard addresses the applicant facility's ability to render emergency open heart surgery services subsequent to a patient's arrival at the facility. It is an internal requirement. A travel time standard addresses the extent to which the Service Area population has access to services. It is a requirement external to any specific hospital. For the reasons set forth in Findings of Fact 57-60 above, a travel time standard is not appropriate for pediatric open heart programs. However, these reasons do not negate the benefits of an emergency mobilization standard. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.d. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE HRS IS WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DOCUMENT HOW OPEN HEART WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PERSONS IN NEED. The existing rule mandates that open heart surgery be available to all persons in need regardless of the ability to pay. This provision remains intact in subparagraph 4.d. of the amended rule, but is clarified in part as follows: Applicants for adult or pediatric open heart surgery programs shall document the manner in which they will meet this requirement. HRS currently requires evidence of an applicant's past record with regard to Medicaid and indigent care, as well as statistical projections for the provision of such care upon implementation of its program. In fact, the language added to paragraph 4.d. simply reflects the Department's existing method of reviewing CON applications pursuant to the guidelines of Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, which requires consideration of an applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Section 381.704(4), Florida Statutes (1989) gives HRS the authority to adopt rules necessary to implement Sections 381.701-381.715. Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1989) requires HRS to review certificate of need applications in context with "(n) The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent," "(h)... the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district", and "(b) the ... accessibility of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant." The Petitioners have not established any inconsistencies between the Proposed Amendments and the statutory standards of review. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, SERVICE QUALITY STANDARDS, IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE THE STANDARDS ARE UNRELATED TO PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. The standards contained in Subsection 5 are minimum quality of care standards which apply to programs providing pediatric as well as adult open heart surgery. These requirements do not significantly change the existing rule. St. Mary's suggested that the standards were only applicable to an open heart program servicing adults and that pediatric programs should have different standards. No persuasive evidence was provided to establish that any of the requirements are unrelated or unnecessary to pediatric open heart programs. In fact, St. Mary's own witness, Dr. Bryon, testified that he had no objection to the provisions of paragraph 5. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE "NOT NORMAL" CIRCUMSTANCES. Subparagraph 7b of the proposed rule amendments establishes a need determination formula. Application of this formula is governed by minimum volume and utilization standards established under subparts a and c of paragraph 7. Subparagraph 7e of the proposed amendments provides as follows: a. A new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the HRS District if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the HRS District; One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the HRS District that were operational for at least twelve months as of six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the twelve months ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; or, One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the HRS District that were operational for less than twelve months during the twelve months ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 29 adult open heart surgery operations per month. * * * (c) Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in subparagraph b. above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for an HRS district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the HRS district below 350 open heart surgery operations. (emphasis added) The need determination formula includes a presumption against approval of a new provider if there is already an approved program within a district, or any existing program within a district is operating at less than 350 procedures annually. HRS has recognized that the need determination formula cannot take into account all factors within a district which may affect actual need. Accordingly, the rule implicitly allows consideration of "not normal" circumstances in determining need. If circumstances are "normal", then a failure to satisfy the conditions in paragraph 7 will mean that the application is denied. However, by proving that circumstances are "not normal", a new adult open heart surgery program can be approved despite the failure to satisfy the conditions in paragraph 7. The "not normal" provision is also found in the statement of Departmental Intent, subparagraph 1 of the Proposed Amendments. That provision proclaims that an application will "not normally" be approved unless the applicant meets relevant statutory criteria, including the standards and need determination criteria. HRS perceived its current rule and the Proposed Amendments as providing applicants with the opportunity to demonstrate need for a new adult open heart surgery program by demonstrating numeric need under paragraph 7 or by demonstrating "not normal" circumstances. HRS can and will approve an application in the absence of quantified need where the other statutory review criteria are met and the applicant demonstrates that a need for a new program exists. The current rule provides a similar presumption against approval if there is already an approved program in the district, or if any existing program in the district is operating at less than 350 procedures annually. This rule has been interpreted to allow applicants to demonstrate actual need by demonstrating circumstances that transcend the numeric calculation. For example, an open heart program was recently approved by HRS for Marion County even in the absence of numeric need as determined by the rule. It is impossible to list all of the circumstances where a new program could be approved even in the absence of "numeric need." Examples of not normal circumstances include a showing of inaccessibility, excessive utilization of a particular facility, or an intentional action by an existing provider to keep its utilization below 350 annual procedures. Other factors may include exceptional circumstances as they relate to the review criteria listed in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, evidence of an unusual payor mix, established referral patterns among existing providers, or evidence to suggest that an existing program could not reach the 350 minimum procedure volume because of poor quality of care. In sum, Paragraph 7 of the Proposed Amendments does not preclude an applicant from attempting to demonstrate that its application should be approved in the absence of quantified need. The "not normally" language will enable HRS to consider all the statutory review criteria in its review of applications even in the absence of numeric need under paragraph 7. The Petitioners challenging the "not normal" language in paragraph 7 of the Rule have failed to provide any credible evidence to demonstrate that the "not normal" provisions are arbitrary or capricious or unduly vague. Similar provisions have been upheld in prior cases. See, Humana, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889, 891, (Fla. 1st DCA, 1985); North Broward Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 86-1186R (Final Order issued July 18, 1988.) WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 7.a. IS INVALID FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: Existing programs could block a proposed program by keeping the number of open heart operations performed in a given year below 350. As indicated above, the Proposed Amendments provide that a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved in a service district if any of the existing programs in the district performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 6 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. The challengers claim that the Proposed Amendments to paragraph 7a are invalid because they allow existing programs to bar approval of new programs by keeping their volume below 350. This issue was considered by HRS in its rule amendment promulgation deliberations. No evidence was presented during those deliberations or at the hearing in this cause that there has been a deliberate attempt by any existing provider to keep the number of operations performed below 350 per year. Indeed, such an attempt is unlikely because it would require physicians to intentionally turn away patients requiring open heart surgery when a facility's numbers reach close to 350 operations on an annual basis. The existing rule has a similar provision. As discussed in more detail below, a Section 120.56 rule challenge was filed in 1987 against this provision in the existing rule alleging the possibility that an existing provider could block a proposed adult open heart surgery program by deliberately keeping its annual adult open heart surgery volume below 350 cases. These charges were rejected as speculative and unsubstantiated. St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative, 9 F.A.L.R. 6159, DOAH Case No. 87- 2729R. The Proposed Amendments would not prohibit the award of a CON if a deliberate pattern or scheme to keep volume low to lockout new providers was demonstrated. Because it protects market share which is anticompetitive and contrary to statute; is unconstitutional in that it denies equal protection and due process, and because it is contrary to agency policy through 1989. Paragraph 7.a. of the Proposed Amendments is based upon a substantially similar provision found in the National Guidelines. The National Guidelines were adopted by the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare following an extensive consultation and review process in 1978. The National Guidelines are one of the key resource materials used by local and state health planning agencies in developing certificate of need regulations. The state of Florida conforms to the National Guidelines in most areas. According to the National Guidelines, a new open heart program should not ordinarily be approved if an existing program is operating at less than 350 operations annually. Specifically, Section 121.107(3) of the "Rules and Regulations" of the National Guidelines, entitled "Open Heart Surgery" published at Vol. 43, No. 60 of the Federal Register, provides at page 262: There should be no additional open heart units initiated unless each existing unit in the health service area(s) is operating and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 open heart surgery cases per year in adult services or 130 pediatric open heart cases in pediatric services. According to the "Discussion" at Section (b) of the Rules and Regulations for open heart surgery in the National Guidelines: In order to prevent duplication of costly resources which are not fully utilized, the opening of new units should be contingent upon existing units operating, and continuing to operate, at a level of at least 350 procedures per year. (emphasis added) The 350 service volume requirement has been a part of HRS' open heart surgery certificate of need rule since its adoption in 1982. As discussed in more detail below, there is a substantial body of literature which concludes that there is a relationship between volume and outcome in the provision of adult open heart surgery services. The literature contains data which demonstrates that, as a general rule, hospitals which provide higher volumes of adult open heart surgery cases achieve better patient outcomes. Based upon this research, the optimum efficiency standard, both from quality of care and economy of scale perspective, is believed to be approximately 500 procedures per year. The 350 minimum volume standard reflects HRS' desire that each existing and approved facility be operating at 75% of this optimum standard before any additional programs are approved within an HRS District. The 350 standard assumes that each facility can provide an average of seven operations per week, a schedule judged to be feasible in most institutions which provide open heart surgery services. As a matter of health planning policy, HRS adopted the 350-standard in an effort to prevent duplication of costly services which are not fully utilized, both as to facility resources and manpower. This standard is intended to assure both quality of care and efficiency in the operations of adult open heart surgery programs. For several years after the rule was originally adopted in 1982, the rule was interpreted by HRS to require a showing that each existing program was at or above 350 procedures annually before a new program could normally be approved. However, as discussed below, sometime around 1984 or 1985, HRS began "interpreting" the 350 standard to be an average, i.e., the average utilization of all existing programs in a district had to be at or above 350 before a new program would normally be approved. From approximately early 1985 through January 22, 1990, HRS interpreted the existing rule in accordance with the "averaging method". This averaging method allowed HRS to find numeric need when the average total of procedures per program in the district equaled 350 or more. In 1987, a Section 120.56 rule challenge was brought against the then existing open heart rule. In that case, the 350 standard was directly attacked as being too high as a minimum procedure threshold. In the 1987 challenge to the open heart rule, HRS explained the rule utilizing the averaging approach. St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, supra, 9 FALR at 6174. HRS witness Elfie Stamm testified during that hearing in support of the rule as it was being interpreted at that time. Extensive testimony was presented regarding the 350 standard. It is not clear whether any of the parties challenged the averaging approach as part of that case. Ultimately the rule, including the 350 standard was, upheld. The Final Order presumes that the averaging approach would be used and does not specifically address the validity of that approach. None of the Petitioners in this case have provided persuasive evidence that the 350 standard has become obsolete or inappropriate. Indeed, as discussed in more detail below, the evidence indicates that the 350 standard is still the most widely accepted standard. During 1989, several Orders were entered by the Division of Administrative Hearings rejecting HRS' interpretation that the existing rule permitted the averaging method. In Lakeland Regional Medical Center v. HRS, 11 FALR 6463 (DOAH Final Order November 15, 1989), a hearing officer declared the HRS "averaging policy" to be inconsistent with the language of the existing rule and an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it had not been adopted in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. In a subsequent 120.57 proceeding involving the proposed issuance of a CON for a new open heart surgery program, the Recommended Order rejected HRS' averaging policy and concluded that it could not be applied because it was inconsistent with the existing rule. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. HRS, 12 FALR 785 (Final Order, January 23, 1990). In the Recommended Order in the Hillsborough County case, the hearing officer did not address the relative merits of the averaging policy versus the each and every method. He found that "the incipient policy constitutes an impermissible deviation from the terms of an existing rule and cannot be used in this proceeding. In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to determine whether an adequate record foundation exists to support that [averaging approach]." Although HRS had argued in favor of the averaging policy at the hearing in the Hillsborough County case, the Secretary of HRS in his Final Order in that case accepted the "each and every" interpretation declaring that "it is good health planning to allow newly approved providers to become operational and reach the 350 procedure level as soon as possible and before new programs are authorized." Id. at 787. In subsequent final orders on other open heart surgery CON applications, HRS has followed this original interpretation of its existing open heart surgery rule and agreed that, as written, the rule requires that the 350 standard be met by each existing and approved facility before a new program can normally be approved. See, Mease Health Care v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 853 (Final Order dated January 23, 1990); Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Lucerne v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Central Florida Regional Hospital Inc. d/b/a Central Florida Regional Hospital. 12 FALR 823 (Final Order dated January 23, 1990), reversed on other grounds 16 F.L.W. 1515 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Hospital Development and Services Corporation d/b/a Plantation General Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 3462 (Final Order dated July 27, 1990.) In sum, since January, 1990, the Department has abandoned its former policy of averaging utilization on a district-wide basis and applied the Rule literally to require that "each and every" facility perform the required threshold number of procedures before a new program will normally be approved. HRS uses the averaging method to determine need for other programs such as cardiac catheterization, nursing homes, rehabilitation services, psychiatric and substance abuse services, and neonatal intensive care. The challengers contend that it is arbitrary for HRS to use an averaging approach to determine numeric need for some services and not use it for open heart programs. The mere fact that an averaging approach is used for other services does not in and of itself establish that HRS is acting arbitrarily in refusing to follow that approach with open heart surgery programs. The evidence established that HRS treats open heart surgery services differently because the existing research indicates a direct tie between volume and outcome. HRS has not found a similar demonstrated connection between volume and outcome in any of those other services. In fact, in certain of those services, such as psychiatric care, the volume/quality of care correlation may be a negative one. The Proposed Amendments do not change the 350 standard in the existing rule, except in the case where an existing program has been operational for less than a year. Whereas the existing rule would not normally authorize a new program before an existing program is providing 350 procedures per year, the Proposed Amendments relax the standard by allowing a new program to be approved if a program that has been operational for less than one year achieves an average monthly volume of 29 operations. The challengers contend the Proposed Amendments to paragraph 7a are anticompetitive and serve to protect the market shares of existing providers. To the contrary, the more persuasive evidence indicates that the purpose of the 350 standard is not to thwart competition, but, rather, to ensure quality care and efficiency. The Petitioners did not establish that the 350 standard is inappropriate or does not tend to promote quality and efficient care. Without a doubt, HRS' conclusions and the Proposed Amendments reflect a preference for large volume open heart surgery providers and consequently serve to restrict new providers from entering the market. As set forth below, this preference is supported by the existing research in this area. While the correlation between large volume and quality of care is not absolute, the evidence did not demonstrate that HRS has acted arbitrarily in adopting a policy which is aimed at encouraging all open heart programs an opportunity to grow to the 350 level. HRS has adopted a rule designating adult open heart surgery as a tertiary health service. See, Rule 10-5.002(66)8. (previously 5.002(41)8,) Florida Administrative Code. A tertiary health service is defined in Section 381.701(20), as follows: "Tertiary health service" means a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, an cost-effectiveness of such service. To the extent that the 350 standard may work in some instances to favor greater use of existing providers over approval of a new competitor, that result is consistent with the nature of open heart surgery services as a tertiary health service. There is no question that several existing adult open heart surgery programs, including the programs of some of the intervenors in this case who are defending the Proposed Amendments, were approved after numeric need was found using the averaging policy. In many, if not all of those cases, need would not have been found if the "each and every" approach was used. See, Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 16 F.L.W. 1515 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The challengers contend that they are being denied equal protection and/or that the "each and every" approach is being used to protect existing providers. As indicated above, the Petitioners have not established that the standards set forth in the National Guidelines are obsolete or inappropriate. The evidence of record in this case was insufficient to conclude that HRS is acting arbitrarily by reenacting standards that are consistent with the National Guidelines. HRS' temporary application of the averaging approach was not consistent with the language of the existing rule or the original interpretation given to the rule by HRS at the time it was adopted. While no evidence was presented that quality of care diminished during the period of time the averaging approach was used, HRS' policy decision to return to standards established in the National Guidelines can not be characterized as arbitrary and capricious. The research contained in the HRS 1988 and 1989 rule promulgation files supports the 350 standard as set forth in Paragraph 7.a. of the Proposed Rule. Most of this research indicates that there is a strong correlative relationship between the volume of open heart surgery performed by a program and the resulting quality of care, both in terms of morbidity and mortality. Specifically, studies performed by Dr. Harold Luft, suggest a relationship between volume of procedures and quality of care. The Luft studies suggest that mortality and morbidity tend to increase as a percentage of total procedures performed when volume is reduced. In contrast, morbidity and mortality tend to decrease as the annual number of procedures is increased. The Challengers have presented no persuasive evidence to rebut these studies. Given the undisputed relationship between the quality and economic efficiency of an open heart surgery program and its volume, HRS reasonably concluded that it is sound health planning policy to normally allow approved providers to achieve and sustain the 350 procedure level before new programs are authorized. The Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Rule Amendments addressed the "each and every" versus "averaging" approach to the 350 standard. Representatives of hospitals which do not offer open heart surgery services were in attendance at the Work Group. No member of the Work Group presented evidence to support the "averaging" approach to the 350 standard nor was any evidence presented to rebut the data contained in the Luft studies. The evidence presented at the hearing in this matter did not establish that the "averaging approach" would in any way improve or contribute to quality assurance. Indeed, it could lead to problems in districts with established high volume open heart surgery providers. For example, if one provider in a service district performs 600 cases and another performs 100 cases, the service district would meet a "350" average standard However, the lower volume provider would be operating at well below the minimum necessary to insure quality of care. In other words, using an averaging approach, need could be found in a district containing an extremely low volume provider, which would probably inhibit the ability of the struggling existing provider to raise its service volume and could be detrimental to the overall quality of care in the district. The National Guidelines and Intersociety Study establish a minimum quality of care threshold at 200 annual procedures per open heart team. The existing rule provides, under the heading "Service Quality" for a "Minimum Service Provision" which requires 200 procedures to be performed annually within 3 years of initiation of service by an open heart program. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)5.d., Florida Administrative Code. The 200 procedure requirement was intended to ensure that a new program would operate at a minimum quality of care level. The Proposed Amendments delete this requirement. The challengers contend that HRS is inappropriately substituting the 350 procedure requirement contained in the Proposed Amendments as a new quality of care standard to be applied to open heart programs. The 350 standard is not intended by HRS to be a per se indicator of quality of care, nor is it intended to create a presumption that a program operating below 350 annual procedures provides poor quality of care. While the Petitioners claim that the 350 requirement in the National Guidelines was primarily an economic efficiency provision and was not a quality of care issue, the evidence indicates that the 350 standard was developed with both quality of care and efficiency in mind. Efficiency standards are important to allow a program to be doing enough operations to justify the staffing ratios, the inventory of supplies, and the utilization of the rooms themselves. While the challengers believe that the 350 standard is too high, the evidence was insufficient to establish that there is a more reasonable figure let alone that HRS' reliance upon the National Guidelines was arbitrary. Approximately seven districts would have shown need for a new program in 1993 if an averaging approach was used. However, under the "each and every" interpretation, HRS found there to be zero program need. The challengers point out that HRS has no authority to revoke a CON for a hospital operating an open heart surgery program with a low service volume. They contend that, due to referral patterns, quality of care problems, a shift in demographics, or similar reason, a hospital may be unable to generate a volume of 350 procedures which could preclude the addition of a new program even if there is a need in the district. The calculation of numeric need is only one of many criteria which the Department is required to consider under Section 381.705, Florida Statutes when reviewing applications for open heart surgery certificates of need. The Health Facility and Services Department Act sets forth many criteria which the department must consider when making a determination on an application for certificate of need including its need for the proposal, the existing availability of the proposed service of facility, the impact of the proposal on the cost of providing the service, and the quality of care provided by existing providers and proposed by the applicant. These criteria are consistent with the statutory aim as expressed in Title 42 - Public Health, Chapter 1 Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Part 121 - National Guidelines for Health Planning which provides: "Equal access to quality health care at a reasonable cost ... Cost savings may be achieved without sacrificing the quality of or access to care through more efficient utili- zation of existing resources and increased emphases on ambulatory and community services. Moreover, limitations of certain resources, such as open heart units, can lead to improve- ments in the quality of care while at the same time containing costs." Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 60., page 254. It is important to keep in mind that the 350 standard does not prohibit the approval of a new open heart program if an existing program in the district does not meet this standard. The proposed amendments, as well as existing HRS policy, simply provide that an application for a new program will "not normally" be approved. In other words, the burden of showing need for a new program is shifted to the applicant. The challengers contend that acquiring a CON when there is no numeric need calculated in accordance with the rule is next to impossible. Without question, an applicant's burden in such a situation would be substantially more difficult. However, the evidence does not support the contention that such approval is impossible. In conclusion, the 350 standard is a reasonable threshold criterion to presume need under normal circumstances. It is neither anti-competitive nor unconstitutional to require an applicant to allege and demonstrate the existence of not normal circumstances to overcome this presumption. Because no new program can be added when there is an outstanding approved but yet operational program in existence which could take an undue amount of time coming on line thereby preventing the approval of a new program. The challengers claim that requiring approved programs to become operational before a new program will normally be approved is unreasonable because of the length of time it could take for a newly approved program to come on line. HRS is generally aware of the length of time it takes an approved program to become operational. HRS reasonably resolved the balance of competing considerations by deciding that it should not approve a second new program in a district while there is still an approved program that has not yet become operational. HRS has concluded that it is preferable to allow programs to grow to a volume of 350 annual operations to assure quality and efficiency before adding a new program. The challengers have not established that this decision was arbitrary or that it would be in any way beneficial to allow simultaneous development of two or more adult open heart surgery programs within a service district. There are time restrictions on the implementation of a newly approved program and HRS has authority to void a CON when those restrictions are not met. See, Rule 10-5.018(2), Florida Administrative Code. Approved providers may not simply retain their CONs for open heart surgery services indefinitely without implementing them. If for some reason an approved program failed to commence operations within a reasonable time to the point of creating problems of service accessibility, an applicant could raise this issue as a "not normal" circumstance. The provision in the Proposed Amendments which would normally prevent approval of a new program when there is an outstanding approved but not yet operational program in existence is consistent with HRS' interpretation of the existing rule. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 7.b OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE ONLY ONE NEW PROGRAM CAN BE APPROVED AT A TIME. Paragraph 7.b. of the Proposed Amendments provides that even where the numeric need calculation results in a projected need for more than one new adult open heart program, only one new program per service district may be approved in a given batching cycle. The only evidence presented concerning this issue was the testimony of Ms. Stamm, who asserted that the practice of approving one program at a time ensures that only one new provider will compete with established facilities within a service district and that a new program will have an opportunity for rapid start-up growth in order to reach a safe volume level in a short period of time. By limiting approval to only one new program per planning horizon, the volume and quality of care at existing programs is protected and the continued viability of new providers is assisted. The challengers claim that this provision is arbitrary and capricious because it could prevent the approval of a new open heart surgery program even when numeric need, as determined by the Rule, is present. However, as indicated above, the calculation of numeric need is based upon desired, not maximum levels of operation. Thus, even if numeric need is shown in accordance with the Rule, a new program is not automatically required. Petitioners have not established that HRS' balancing of the conflicting concerns on this issue was arbitrary or capricious. The requirement that only one new program be approved at a time is consistent with HRS' interpretation of the existing rule. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 8 IS ANTICOMPETITIVE, UNDULY RESTRICTIVE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. Paragraph 8 of the Proposed Amendments sets forth a new quantitative need formula for pediatric open heart surgery services programs. It provides: 8.9. Pediatric Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. The need for pediatric open heart surgery programs shall be deter- mined on a regional basis in accordance with the pediatric open heart surgery program service areas as defined in sub-subparagraph 2.1. A new pediatric open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved unless the total of resident live births in the pediatric open heart surgery service area, for the most recent calendar year available from the department's Office of Vital Statistics at least 3 months prior to publication of the fixed need pool, minus the number of existing and approved pediatric open heat surgery programs multiplied by 30,000, is at or exceeds 30,000. The 30,000 live birth standard is based upon and consistent with the standards adopted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Cardiology, for use by health planning agencies and health service organizations to evaluate existing pediatric cardiac centers and to establish the need for the development of new centers. The 30,000 live birth standard is set forth in the "Guidelines for Pediatric Cardiology, Diagnostic and Treatment Centers," published in Volume 62, No. 2, American Academy of Pediatrics (1978) (the "Pediatric Guidelines"). Those guidelines were updated in 1990 and the 30,000 live birth standard was retained in the updated version. The Pediatric Guidelines, like the National Guidelines, is a well-respected and readily available research tool that health planners customarily rely upon in evaluating the need for health care programs. The 30,000 live birth standard is also contained in the HRS Children's Medical Services administrative rules and this methodology is consistent with the minimum service volume standards found in the National Guidelines. Unlike the methodology utilized to project need for adult open heart surgery programs, the methodology proposed to project need for pediatric open heart surgery does not utilize a "use rate." This pediatric need methodology assumes a constant use rate and attributes increased need to population growth. St. Mary's argues that the 30,000 live birth standard should not be utilized because the incidence rate of pediatric open heart surgery (the number of procedures per 30,000 births) may change and the standard does not take into account such changes which could be based on advances in medicine, etc. This criticism is highly speculative and does not provide a basis for rejecting the 30,000 live birth standard. While the use rate for adult open heart surgery has generally increased since the open heart rule was adopted in the early 1980s, there is no evidence that the use rate for pediatric open heart surgery programs has increased. St. Mary's contends that the 30,000 live birth standard only takes into account the pediatric population in the neonatal or newborn time period. However, this contention was not supported by the evidence. The 30,000 live birth standard assumes that in the years prior to attaining 30,000 live births, a service area experienced something less than 30,000 live births each year and will experience approximately 30,000 live births in subsequent years, so that an age pyramid is building. The Florida data indicates that if this standard is applied over 14 years, approximately 75 pediatric open heart surgery cases per year would be generated based upon multiple years of approximately 30,000 volume base. Approximately 100-130 cases can be expected if the age cohort is increased to 21. St. Mary's proposed an alternative methodology based upon comments appearing in an article titled "Trends in Cardiac Surgery" from the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 1980. That article suggested that a 380,000 pediatric population base from age 0-14 can be expected to generate 75 pediatric open heart surgery operations. Utilizing the 1970 United States age mix, which indicates that 27.5 percent of all persons are under the age of 14, St. Mary's suggests that the 380,000 pediatric population should be grossed up to a 1.38 million total population base and this total population figure is an appropriate standard for determining when to add a new pediatric program. Serious questions were raised regarding the validity of St. Mary's proposed standard. For example, it appears that the age mix in Florida is significantly different than the age mix figures used by St. Mary's. In sum, the evidence did not establish that St. Mary's proposed standard was more appropriate to use, let alone that HRS acted arbitrarily in adopting the 30,000 live birth standard. Indeed, the evidence established that the 30,000 live birth standard employed in the Proposed Amendments as a basis to project need for pediatric open heart surgery programs is a reasonable basis upon which to plan for pediatric open heart surgery programs. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROHIBITS AN APPLICANT FROM APPLYING FOR BOTH PEDIATRIC AND ADULT OPEN HEART SURGERY AND FOR THAT REASON IS INVALID. Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)1. states that providers must apply for separate certificates of need for adult and pediatric open heart surgery programs. The existing rule does not expressly state that separate certificates of need are necessary. However, Rule 10-5.008(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires separate letters of intent for each type of service having a separate need methodology, even if the projects are within the same facility. Thus, separate applications are necessary under both the present rule and the proposed amendments because a separate need methodology is stated in both. As discussed above, the Proposed Amendments do not prohibit an applicant from applying for a certificate of need for pediatric open heart surgery services and adult open heart surgery services simultaneously. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SET FORTH A MINIMUM NUMBER OF MIXED PEDIATRIC AND ADULT OPERATIONS WHICH MUST BE PERFORMED IN A MIXED PROGRAM AS A PREDICATE TO THE AWARD OF ANOTHER ADULT PROGRAM. Neither the existing rule nor the Proposed Amendments to the rule specifically address the minimum number of annual operations which must be performed in a "mixed" program before an additional adult program may be added. Thus, any "mixed" adult/pediatric open heart surgery program would have to be performing at least 350 adult procedures before there would be a calculated need for an additional adult open heart program in the district. St. Anthony's argues that this requirement should not apply to "mixed" programs and/or that a lower volume standard should have been adopted for hospitals that operate "mixed" programs. There is considerable confusion as to how to define a "mixed" program. St. Anthony's contends that a "mixed" open heart surgery program is any program that provides open heart surgery services to both adult and pediatric patients. HRS contends that if the programs are separately organized and staffed, the fact that a hospital has both programs is irrelevant to assessing the appropriate volume capacity. HRS considers a "mixed program" as one in which a single team is performing both pediatric and adult open heart surgery. Under this view, a hospital can have both an adult open heart surgery program and a pediatric open heart surgery program without necessarily being considered a "mixed" program. Applying this definition, there is apparently only one program in the state which is a "mixed" program. That program is located at Bayfront/All Children's Hospital. St. Anthony's contends that there are other programs in this state that offer both pediatric and adult open heart surgery. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish that any of these other programs meets the HRS definition of a mixed program. St. Anthony's cites to a provision in the National Guidelines which provides that the minimum number of open heart surgery procedures that should be performed in a "mixed" program is 200, of which 75 should be for children. However, HRS has reasonably concluded that this provision in the National Guidelines was not intended to establish a threshold for the addition of a new adult program. The studies which were the source of this provision did not attempt to address the number of procedures that should be performed in a "mixed" program before a new adult program should be awarded. In view of the extremely small number of "mixed" programs and the lack of clear evidence regarding the optimal number of procedures that should be performed in such programs, HRS has elected to not address "mixed" programs in the existing rule or the Proposed Amendments. For a true "mixed" program, it may not be reasonable or desirable to expect 350 adult surgeries per year. However, the available data is inconclusive and St. Anthony's has not presented persuasive evidence of a more realistic number. Thus, HRS' decision to not adopt a rule of general applicability to address this issue, is not arbitrary or capricious. An applicant in a district with a "mixed" program that is not performing 350 adult procedures per year can apply on a "not normal" basis. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INVALID BECAUSE HRS HAS FAILED TO PREPARE A DETAILED ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT, AN ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT ON COMPETITION, OR DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE DATA AND METHODOLOGY USED IN MAKING THE PROPOSED RULES, THE FAILURE OF WHICH IMPAIRED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AGENCY. Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to prepare an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) containing the economic impact of the proposed rule on all persons directly affected. HRS assessed the economic impact of its proposed amendments and concluded that there would be no impact because the proposed amendments do not change the projected need for either adult or pediatric programs. As discussed in more detail above, the Proposed Amendments clarify that the 350 target volume must be achieved by each and every existing and approved program before a new program will be approved. The existing rule has been interpreted to require the same thing. While HRS followed an averaging interpretation for a period in the past, that interpretation has been rejected in a series of final orders. Since the averaging interpretation was deemed invalid before these Proposed Amendments, the Proposed Amendments do not change the way need is assessed under the existing rule. Thus, there is no economic impact by reason of the inclusion in the Proposed Amendments of the 350 standard. Likewise, the new methodology for calculating need for pediatric open heart surgery does not change the calculations made under the existing rule. None of the other changes to the existing rule have been shown to have a significant impact on existing providers or applicants. None of the challengers showed that they are able to obtain an economic benefit now that they will be deprived of under the rule as amended nor have they demonstrated any prejudice by reason of HRS' conclusion that the Proposed Amendments would not have an adverse economic impact.
The Issue The issue is whether Winter Haven Hospital, Inc.`s application for a certificate of need to establish an open heart surgery program at its health care facility in Winter Haven, Florida should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On September 26, 1988 respondent/applicant, Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. (WHH), filed its application for a certificate of need (CON) with respondent Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), seeking authorization to establish an adult open heart surgery program at its facility located at 200 Avenue F, Northeast, Winter Haven, Florida. According to the application, WHH proposed to implement an open heart surgery program in an existing operating room with a project expenditure of $714,000. After reviewing the application, HRS found certain items to be either incomplete or missing and requested WHH to furnish such data by November 20, 1988. After such items were timely submitted, HRS deemed the application to be complete on November 14, 1988. A further review of the application followed, and, despite noting at least ten deficiencies in the application, HRS issued its state agency action report and letter of intent to grant the application on January 13, 1989. This preliminary action was followed by a notice of intention to grant the CON published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 3, 1989. After notice of HRS's preliminary decision was published, petitioner, Hillsborough County Hospital Authority d/b/a Tampa General Hospital (TGH), a 947-bed acute care hospital located at Davis Island, Tampa, Florida, filed a petition for formal hearing challenging the proposed agency action. A similar petition was also filed by petitioner, Lakeland Regional Medical Center (LRMC), a 897-bed acute care hospital in Lakeland, Florida. Both petitioners contended that WHH's request, if approved, would adversely affect their existing open heart surgery programs in contravention of state law and agency rules. The parties have stipulated to the standing of petitioners. The Omissions Process When WHH filed its application with HRS on September 26, 1988, it inadvertently failed to submit (a) one page of the balance sheet of the financial statements and (b) the opinion letter of the certified public accounting firm that prepared the financial statements. During the initial review of the application, HRS noted that the financial statements were incomplete and requested WHH to file such data during the so-called omissions process. This process is authorized by statute and rule and affords an applicant the opportunity to supply missing or incomplete information after the initial application has been filed. Pursuant to HRS's request, WHH supplied the two missing documents, and other requested information, by the specified due date. After receipt of this data, the agency deemed the application to be complete. According to agency personnel, when the application was filed HRS had a policy of permitting this type of information to be routinely filed during the omissions process. Shortly thereafter, HRS changed its policy and required complete financial statements to be filed with the initial application. If complete financial statements were not initially filed, the application was deemed to be incomplete and rejected without further review or opportunity to supply the missing data. However, this policy was recently ended, and the agency has now reverted to the policy in effect at the time WHH filed its application. Thus, the filing of such data by WHH during the omissions process was consistent with then existing agency policy as well as HRS's governing rules and statutes. The Parties The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Health Facility and Services Development Act, also known as the Certificate of Need (CON) law. In this proceeding, and consistent with its proposed agency action, HRS supported WHH's application. Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. is a non-profit community hospital licensed for 579 long-term and psychiatric beds. Of that total, 259 are designated as medical/surgical beds while 36 are classified as intensive care unit (ICU) beds. Established more than fifty years ago, WHH has two campuses, a 160-member medical staff with a broad range of medical specialties, and provides all major medical services with the exception of open heart surgery, comprehensive burn treatment, and Level III neonatal intensive care. In August 1988 WHH opened a cardiac catherization laboratory with the intention of later adding an open heart surgery unit. The facility treats Medicaid and Medicare patients and indigents and has contracts with local health management and preferred provider organizations and other groups. Although not disclosed in the letter of intent, WHH is a subsidiary corporation of Mid-Florida Medical Services, Inc., a holding company for WHH and various other affiliated entities. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority is a public agency created in 1980 by the Florida Legislature for the express purpose of operating Tampa General Hospital. Licensed for 947 beds, the facility serves as a major teaching and tertiary referral hospital providing a complete range of services twenty four hours per day, including open heart surgery. In addition, TGH is the primary teaching hospital for the University of South Florida medical school. By law, TGH is required to provide indigent care. Lakeland Regional Medical Center operates a large, regional referral acute care facility at 1324 Lakeland Hills Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida. Of its licensed 897 beds, approximately 700 are licensed medical/surgical and ICU beds. LRMC has historically provided a wide range of acute care services, including open heart surgery and diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catherization, and is a major tertiary referral center. According to Health Care Cost Containment Board data, LRMC treats twice as many patients, including those acutely ill, as does WHH and has a substantially larger operating budget. District 6 Open Heart Programs The facilities of WHH, LRMC and TGH are located in district 6, a geographic area composed of Hillsborough, Polk, Manatee, Hardee and Highlands Counties and artificially created by HRS for, among other things, the purpose of determining need for new or additional health facilities within that area, including open heart surgery programs. In addition to TGH and LRMC, there are four other existing adult open heart surgery programs in district 6. These include St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, a well established program, and Manatee Memorial Hospital (Bradenton), L. W. Blake Hospital (Bradenton) and University Community Hospital (Tampa). The latter three programs opened in February 1988, March 1989 and June 1989, respectively. None have intervened in this proceeding. When WHH's application was reviewed, a seventh open heart surgery program within the district (Humana- Brandon) had been preliminarily approved, but that approval was subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, Humana- Brandon will not be considered as an existing or approved program. According to the state agency action report made a part of this record, the programs and number of open heart procedures performed during the twelve month period ending June 30, 1988 were as follows: Program Procedures St. Joseph's 933 TGH 1230 University Community Hospital 0 L. W. Blake 0 Manatee Memorial 70 LRMC 503 Total 2736 For the twelve months ending September 30, 1988, there were 2,672 procedures performed by district 6 programs, or a decline of 64 procedures when compared to the total performed during the year ending June 30, 1988. Of that amount, 1614 procedures were performed on district 6 residents while 1058 procedures were performed on non-district 6 residents. The latter number included 541 residents from district 5 of whom 473 were Pasco County residents. The service area of TGH's open heart surgery program encompasses a nine-county area with a range of seventy miles. It receives 42% of its open heart patients from district 6, with 34% from Hillsborough County and 5% from Polk County. As to the patients from outside district 6, TGH receives 33% from district 5 and 14% from district 3. Approximately 75% of LRMC'$ open heart surgery patients are Polk County residents. Indeed, of 496 Polk County residents having open heart surgery during the year ending September 30, 1988, approximately 73% of those residents had surgery at LRMC. The remainder used facilities outside the county, such as TGH. In 1986 approximately 200 patients came to LRMC from locations outside of the City of Lakeland but within Polk County, and some 67 cases per year have been referred by WHH to LRMC. The service area of WHH is not as clearcut. In its application, WHH designated all of Polk County as its primary service area, and Highlands and Hardee Counties as the secondary service area for its proposed program. However, in its answers to interrogatories, WHH represented that its primary service area was eastern Polk County. At hearing, the service area was redesignated as eastern Polk County, Hardee County and Highlands County. Since over 90% of WHH's patients reside in Polk County, it is found that Polk County is its primary service area. For the year ending September 30, 1988 one hundred twenty-five residents of Highlands County had open heart surgery. Only 8% used LRMC while 74% went to a facility in Orlando. For the same time period, sixteen Hardee County residents had open heart surgery, of whom approximately 63% used LRMC's facility. Applicable Statutory and Rule Criteria By prehearing stipulations the parties agreed that, except for the criteria contained in Subsections 381.705(1)(g), (j), and (2)(e), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1988), all other relevant statutory criteria must be satisfied. These include subsections 381.705(1)(a)-(f), (h) and (i), (k)-(n), and (2)(a)- (d). 1/ In addition, the criteria in Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code (1987) are in issue. Of special concern in this proceeding is the appropriate manner in which to satisfy the requirements of subpart 11.a.(I) of the rule. To demonstrate compliance or noncompliance with the criteria, the parties presented a number of expert witnesses. As might be expected, the testimony on this issue is sharply conflicting. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony on the issue, and that testimony is embodied in the findings below. Subsection 381.705(1)(a), F. S. - The first statutory criterion requires that HRS consider "the need for the health care facilities and services . . . being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan arA state health plan." In this regard, the parties have offered into evidence copies of the relevant portions of the two plans. The 1988 District VI Health Plan has application in this proceeding. That plan requires, among other things, that (a) all existing programs in a particular service area must be operating at 350 procedures per year, (b) the proposed unit must be able to reach a level of 200 procedures within three years, and (c) the proposed program cannot reduce the average utilization in the applicant's service area below 350 procedures per year. In addition, the plan expresses a preference for applicants which have an historical commitment to the provision of indigent care and those hospitals with documented status as major regional referral centers. Finally, the plan expresses a preference for applicants from subdistricts not having existing and/or approved programs. Notwithstanding WHH's contention that the foregoing objectives apply only to comparatively reviewed applications, it is found that these objectives must be taken into account in determining whether the proposal is consistent with the plan. The evidence reflects that not all of the existing programs in the service area are operating at 350 procedures per year. Indeed, University Community Hospital, L. W. Blake and Manatee Memorial Hospital are operating at substantially below that number. The record also indicates that the applicant has not reasonably demonstrated that it will reach a level of 200 procedures within three years. Further, unless 700 procedures per year can be generated by LRMC and WHH, which is highly questionable, the requirement that the new program not reduce average utilization in the applicant's service area (Polk County) below 350 will not be met. As to the requirement that an applicant have a historical commitment to the provision of indigent care, WHH's historical commitment, while substantially less than some providers such as TGH, is marginally sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Next, even though the district is not apportioned into subdistricts for the purpose of determining open heart surgery program need, it is noted that WHH's proposed facility would lie within fifteen miles of LRMC. Finally, WHH is considered a community hospital rather than a major regional referral center and thus it falls short on that objective. Even if WHH was a step above a community hospital, it must still be recognized that open heart surgery is a specialized tertiary service which should be regionalized and performed in a limited number of institutions. Therefore, it is found that the proposal is inconsistent with the local health plan. Chapters 4 and 5 of the state health plan contain various objectives and goals for specialized services such as open heart surgery programs. Goal 1 of chapter 4 of the plan establishes an objective of developing "acute-care resources in quantity and mix which appropriately meet population needs in the most cost-efficient manner." Goal 4 of chapter 5 provides an objective of insuring "the appropriate availability of cardiac catherization and open-heart services at a reasonable cost." In addition, objective 4.2 of chapter 5 provides that its goal is "to maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990." The parties have not relied upon or cited any other applicable portions of the state plan. Since the existing programs within the district are not operating at capacity, the approval of the application would be inconsistent with goal 1 of chapter 4 which provides that acute-care resources should be developed in the most cost-efficient manner. The evidence further supports a finding that as to goal 4 of chapter 5, the approval of another program within the district will drive up costs at existing programs. The bases for this finding is set forth in findings of fact 43-46. Thus, the proposal is inconsistent with the plan in this respect. Finally, the proposal is found to be consistent with objective 4.2 of chapter 5 since an average utilization of 350 procedures per program should be maintained through 1990 even with the addition of a new program. Given the above two shortcomings, it is found that the proposal is inconsistent with the state plan. Subsections 381.705(1)(b), (2)(a),(b) and (d), F.S.- These criteria require that HRS consider 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," whether less costly and more efficient and appropriate services are available, and whether patients will experience "serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service." To put these criteria in perspective, it is noted that when the application was reviewed by HRS, there were four existing open heart surgery programs within the district. At time of hearing, two other approved programs had commenced operations. The areas with highest population densities, such as Lakeland, Tampa and Bradenton, all have open heart programs in the vicinity. Thus, the existing programs in the district are geographically distributed consistent with the relative population distribution within the district. There are no programs in either Hardee or Highlands Counties, but they have a very small population base. Indeed, HRS acknowledged in the state agency action report that a new program at WHH would not enhance access to residents of those two counties. According to traffic engineering studies introduced into evidence, open heart surgery services currently are available to 90% of the population of district 6 within a two hour drive time, as required by subparagraph 4.a. of rule 10- 5.011(1)(f). The City of Lakeland is only fifteen miles, or thirty minutes drive time, from Winter Haven. Therefore, the addition of a new program in Winter Haven will not materially enhance geographic accessibility. Further, there is no demonstrated accessibility problem by residents of the district. The existing facilities in the district have sufficient excess capacity to perform additional open heart surgery cases. This projected growth can be accommodated without any additional capital expenditures. Indeed, greater utilization of the existing programs would be a less costly alternative to the establishment of a new program at WHH. Also, there is no evidence that cardiac patients in the district will experience serious problems in obtaining open heart surgery services in the absence of a program at WHH. Therefore, it is found that the applicant has failed to show that the existing programs are inadequate or unavailable, that residents have an accessibility problem to existing facilities, that the quality of care, efficiency, utilization and appropriateness of other programs are less than satisfactory, that less costly, more efficient alternatives are not available, that patients will experience a serious problem in obtaining care in the absence of the proposed new service, or that existing facilities are being used in an inappropriate or inefficient manner. Subsections 381.705(1)(c) and (h), F.S. - These two criteria go hand in hand and require HRS to consider "the ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care," and whether the applicant has sufficient resources, including manpower, to accomplish and operate the project. Petitioners suggest that WHH will be unable to offer adequate quality of care because the new program will not attract a sufficient number of patients and because of a lack of adequate planning. They also contend that WHH will not be able to recruit and hire the necessary personnel to support its program. To ensure quality of care, WHH intends to enter into a contract with The Watson Clinic in Lakeland to provide a surgical team. Since those physicians are performing surgeries at LRMC, WHH proposes that the team would split its time between the two facilities. The team now performs more than 500 procedures per year at LRMC. Thus, WHH asserts that the team can easily maintain its proficiency even if it does not meet its projected level of procedures. For that matter, WHH points to a suggested standard by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) that 150 procedures per year is a reasonable standard, a goal that WHH obviously believes it can reach. It goes on to contend that the surgical team, and not the hospital, performs the procedure, and that as long as the combined efforts of the surgical team surpasses the 500 threshold, the quality of care will be maintained. As to the resources and manpower needed to accomplish the project, WHH projected in its application the need to hire two scrub technicians, two registered nurses and one perfusionist for a single surgical team in one operating room. However, it projected no incremental staffing needs for additional ICU nurses or technicians. The applicant concedes it may "encounter some difficulty in hiring the necessary personnel" for its program but points to a good track record in hiring other personnel and the fact that the perfusionist may be provided by the surgical team from The Watson Clinic. It further posits that aside from the five positions, it is unlikely that any other personnel must be hired. This is because it already has some experienced personnel in the employ of the hospital who can be transferred to the open heart surgery program and others can be readily trained. The evidence establishes the fact that there is a direct relationship between the volume of open heart surgery performed at a hospital and the quality care afforded open heart surgery patients. In other words, as the volume of cases increases, mortality rates generally decrease. As demonstrated in studies introduced by LRMC witness Luft, hospitals performing between 20 and 100 coronary artery bypass graft procedures per year had a risk adjusted mortality rate of 5.2%. This rate decreased to 4.1% for hospitals with annual volumes of between 201 and 350 procedures, and dropped even farther for facilities performing in excess of 350 procedures per year. This measure has proven to be accurate at LRMC, for as the volume at the hospital has increased, mortality has decreased. The above statistics are accepted as being a more reliable measure than the ACS standard of 150 procedures per year suggested by WHH. The more credible evidence reflects that WHH will not be able to perform 200 adult open heart surgery procedures annually within three years of initiating its program. This level could only be achieved if WHH gains a substantial share of Highland County's market. However, the vast majority of Highland patients are currently migrating out of the district to a church sponsored facility in Orlando. This suggests that these patients are motivated by factors other than proximity since they are already bypassing the closest facility, LRMC. In addition, LRMC's cardiovasular surgeons, who WHH plans to use, receive no referrals from that county, and only 4% of LRMC's total hospital discharges come from that county. Further, there is no evidence that WHH would be able to change existing referral patterns. Finally, although WHH projected 164 procedures in its first year, 206 the second year and a minimum of 200 by year three, it made no credible market share analysis to support those projections. Indeed, existing use rates of Polk County residents, which are another good indication of the future demand for a new service, belie WHH's projections and suggest that only 30 additional open heart surgery cases will be generated in 1990 beyond current volumes. This is consistent with the fact that LRMC has experienced the smallest growth in open heart surgery volume of any district 6 program over the last three years. It is noted that HRS projects a growth in volume of less than 200 cases by 1990 for the entire district with much of that growth being accounted for at the new programs. A more credible and reasonable projection shows that by 1993 there will be 2,700 open heart procedures available for the six existing facilities in district 6, which is only 28 procedures more than performed by the four operational programs in district 6 during the year ending September 30, 1988. It should be noted here that WHH's recently initiated cardiology program has been facing slow growth, market saturation and potential decline. All parties recognize the critical shortage of nursing personnel that exists nationally, and particularly in the areas of cardiovascular surgery and intensive care. Even today, LRMC has a number of nursing vacancies, including vacancies in its intensive care unit, despite having a full time recruiter and an aggressive recruiting program. Thus, LRMC's fear of losing skilled personnel to WHH should the application be granted are well-founded, particularly since it has lost staff to WHH in the past. In addition, qualified perfusionists are extremely difficult to hire. Indeed, The Watson Clinic has been attempting, unsuccessfully, to hire an additional perfusionist for the LRMC program for almost a year. Current salaries for a perfusionist range from $70,000 to as high as $100,000 per year. This contrasts with the unrealistic projection of WHH that it could hire a perfusionist for $40,000 per year. A back-up open heart surgery operating room fully equipped and staffed will be necessary in order for WHH to assure patient safety and to be able to provide angioplasties. Additional ICU space is also required. Because WHH has made no provision for an additional operating room or ICU space, and the necessary related staffing, it is apparent that WHH has not adequately planned and demonstrated the intensive care capacity necessary to serve open heart surgery patients. The applicant must have more than one surgical team so as to allow for vacations, sick days, 24-hour coverage, and emergencies. However, table 11 of the application reflects that WHH intends to provide for only one assembled surgical team. With the proposed limitation of one operating room and one surgical team, WHH would not be able to handle emergency cases that arise during normal hours when a scheduled procedure is in progress. It should be noted here that The Watson Clinic now employs only three cardiovascular surgeons. One of those surgeons is leaving, and the clinic has been attempting, unsucessfully so far, to recruit another surgeon. Until a replacement is recruited, the clinic will have only two surgeons who ostensibly would work at both WHH and LRMC if the application was approved. The application does not provide for the additional intensive care staff necessary to care for 200 open heart patients per year. A 1:1 patient to nurse ratio for the first twenty-four hours following surgery is desirable. Even if WHH utilized a less desirable 2:1 ratio, at least four additional intensive care nurses would be required to handle the incremental patient load. During the start-up period for a new open heart surgery program, a hospital cannot be expected to perform the number of cases necessary to achieve the desired low mortality rates. This reality has been taken into acount by HRS by giving new programs three years in which to reach the 200 procedure threshold. Even with this grace period, the evidence supports a finding that WHH will not be able to reach that threshold within the required three year time period. Given this fact, and the shortcomings in applicant's planning for staff and equipment, it is found that WHH has failed to demonstrate that it can ensure the requisite quality of care required by the law. It is further found that applicant has failed to demonstrate that it will have the necessary resources, including manpower, to accomplish and operate the project. Subsections 381.705(1)(d) and (2)(c), F.S. - These criteria require a consideration of alternatives, including sharing arrangements, to the proposal under review. Except for existing facilities, there are no alternatives to open heart surgery. In this regard, HRS determined that "less costly alternatives to the proposal would be greater utilization of the existing open heart surgery programs in District VI." As noted in finding of fact 27, the existing facilities have sufficient excess capacity to handle the projected growth in the district. Although LRMC has offered to explore a cooperative, shared open heart surgery program with the applicant, WHH officials have so far declined. The Watson Clinic, from which the surgical team will be obtained, has also indicated a willingness to support such an arrangement. In light of WHH's unwillingness to consider this alternative, it is found that the statutory criteria have not been ftet. Subsection 381.705(1)(i), F.S. - An applicant for a CON is required to demonstrate the short and long-term financial feasiblility of the project. In this case, the long-term financial feasibility of the project is dependent in large measure upon the reasonableness of WHH's projections. The pro forma financial projections contained in the application are flawed and unreliable. This was borne out by WHH's own financial expert who rejected four of the five assumptions underlying the pro formas. To overcome these deficiencies, at hearing WHH's expert offered a new financial analysis which was substantially different than the pro formas submitted with the application and reviewed by HRS prior to deeming the application complete. As such, the new analysis constituted an impermissible amendment to the application. Even if it was not construed to be an amendment to the application, the projected utilization of 206 procedures by the second year of operation, and upon which the financial projections are premised, was not supported by the evidence. Because of this, it is found that applicant has not demonstrated that the project is financially feasible in the long term. Subsection 381.705(1)(1), F. S. - This criterion requires HRS to consider the "probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant". The statute also speaks of competition and its effect on the ability of the applicant's competitors to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Initially, it is noted that in recent years there has been increasing competition for open heart patients in district 6. This is because three new programs have recently become operational. In addition, a new program was just authorized in Pasco County which will reduce the inflow of Pasco County residents into district 6. Most of the Pasco County patients were utilizing the facility of TGH. The authorization of another program will inevitably draw patients from the existing facilities and the expected loss will serve to increase costs both to patients and hospitals. Although WHH intends to charge lower fees for open heart patients than do LRMC and TGH, HRS concedes that this would not likely have the effect of causing those providers to decrease their charges. At the same time, the competition between LRMC and WHH for the skilled personnel necessary to operate an open heart surgery program would have the effect of driving up costs at both institutions. If approved, the application would directly and adversely impact LRMC. This is because approximately 75% of LRMC's open heart patients are residents of Polk County. The historical overall hospital primary Service area of WHH, which is projected by WHH to mirror the primary service area of its open heart surgery program, directly overlaps LRMC'S primary service area for open heart surgery. In addition, cardiologists and surgeons at LRMC currently receive referrals of surgical, angioplasty and diagnostic cardiac catherization cases from Winter Haven physicians, and those referrals will likely be reduced with the approval of a new program at WHH. This is supported by the fact that when WHH opened its cardiac catherization laboratory in August 1988, LRMC experienced a substantial drop in cases referred from Winter Haven physicians. Further, if WHH achieves its projected level of 206 cases by the second year of operation, LRMC would likely lose 133 open heart referrals and 128 angioplasty cases. This in turn would result in an annual financial loss of $1,652,640 for LRMC. If the number of procedures reached 350, LRMC could likely lose 226 cases per year, a number that WHH's own expert conceded was reasonable given the fact that some 200 patients per year come to LRMC from points outside of Lakeland but within Polk County. Given LRMC's declining operating margins in recent years, and a projected operating margin of only $300,000 in 1990, LRMC would be forced into a deficit position thereby adversely impacting its current level of services, quality of care and ability to provide indigent care. Tampa General Hospital's indigent load is substantial, and for the current fiscal year it anticipates providing $45 million worth of indigent care net of any reimbursement. Indeed, approximately 43% of TGH's patients are in the medically needy category, and it projects a deficit in 1990 of $4.3 million. To offset these losses, TGH relies on revenues from paying patients, of which the open heart surgery program is a major source. In 1988, this source provided 15% of its net patient services revenue. The approval of a program at WHH would further reduce the availability of open heart patients to TGH. If a new program caused only a 10% loss of open heart surgery patients, TGH's gross service revenue would decrease by over $4 million per year. Even the 5% to 6% loss that WHH predicts will occur would equate to a not insubstantial sixty-two patients per year. Accordingly, it is found that the introduction of a new program at WHH would have an adverse impact on TGH, although not as profound as on LRMC. Subsection 381.705(1)(n), F. S. - This subsection requires HRS to consider the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Recent data indicates that only 2.7% of WHH's total patient days were Medicaid days. Also, its total charity uncompensated care was $410,176. When the Hill-Burton compulsory contribution is excluded, WHH's net voluntary indigent and uncompensated care was only $133,950, which was two-tenths of one percent of gross revenue for the year. This contrasts with TGH's total uncompensated care in 1987 of 4.5% of gross revenue. According to Health Care Cost Containment Board data for 1988, WHH's total uncompensated care was approximately one-tenth the amount incurred by LRMC during the same time period. Also, the applicant has had a policy of requiring major surgery patients to demonstrate financial capability before being admitted. Even so, WHH has represented to HRS that it intends to dedicate 2% of open heart services to Medicaid patients which is comparable to the level historically reported by existing providers in the district. Given this representation, which was not contradicted, it is found that the application is in compliance with this criterion. The remaining statutory criteria - Petitioners have not seriously contested WHH's ability to satisfy the remaining statutory criteria. It is specifically found that the remaining relevant statutory criteria have been satisfied. To the extent the rule criteria, except rule 10-5.011(1)(f), apply, they are also deemed to have been satisfied but only where the comparable statutory criteria have been met. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), F. A. C. - This rule sets forth additional criteria against which applications for open heart surgery programs are evaluated. Of some significance is the admonition in subparagraph 2. which states that "(t)he Department will not normally approve applications for open heart surgery programs in any service area unless the conditions of Sub- paragraphs 8. and 11., below, are met." Since WHH does not rely on "not normal" circumstances, a major controversy has arisen over the manner in which MRS has deemed subpart 11.a.(I) to have been satisfied. To determine the numeric need for new programs within a service area, HRS utilized the formula embodied in subparagraph 8. of the rule. Under this formula, a use rate was calculated for the service district based upon the number of open heart surgery procedures per 100,000 population for the year ending June 30, 1988. The use rate was then applied to the projected population for the horizon year of 1990, the year the program is expected to begin. This calculation produced a projected number of 2,914 procedures for 1990. After dividing that number by 350, MRS determined that 8.3 programs were needed in the district by 1990. Since the district already has six existing or approved programs, which must be subtracted from the projected need, the formula produced a net need of two additional programs. According to MRS's expert, the formula calculation merely provides an opportunity, and not a requirement, for MRS to approve an additional program since the applicant's conformity with other rule and statutory criteria must also be considered. It should be noted that the rule projects a need on a district-wide basis and has no provision for projecting the number of cases within various geographic areas of the district such as the service area defined in WMM's application. In this regard, WHH made no claim that it would attact patients from anywhere in district 6 other than Polk, Mardee and Highlands Counties. Subparagraph 11. of the rule reads in part as follows: There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs unless: the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year . the conditions specified in Sub- paragraph 5.4, above, will be met by the proposed program. b. No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which would reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart surgery procedures annually for adults . . . The above rule was adopted in substantially its present form in February 1983. Under the plain language in subparagraph 11.a., even if a numeric need is shown, a new program shall not be established unless each existing and approved program within the district is operating at and is expected to operate at a minimum of 350 procedures per year. The agency's expert acknowledged that the plain language of the rule requires that each existing and approved program be operating at the 350 threshold before a new program may be approved. She also acknowledged that if the words "and approved" were not in subpart 11.a.(I), the agency would interpret the provision in the manner suggested by petitioners. Nonetheless, HRS interprets the rule as requiring that each existing and approved program must in the future maintain an average of 350 procedures if a new program is approved. No determination is made as to whether the existing programs are currently averaging 350 procedures annually. According to HRS's expert, this interpretation is based upon a reading of the entire subparagraph 11. Applicant's expert, who was formerly in charge of HRS's CON program, also supported the agency's practice of "averaging" and concluded that subparagraph authorized this interpretation. Even so, the word "averaging" is not found in any provision within subparagraph 11. In addition, the proponents of the averaging policy rely upon another portion of the rule to support their position. More specifically, they rely heavily upon subparagraph 7. of the same rule which provides that "(t)he provision of open heart surgery in the service area shall be consistent with the needs reflected in the local health plan and the Florida State Health Plan." One objective of the state health plan is to maintain an average of 350 procedures per program in the district through 1990. It is noted, however, that the state health plan applicable to this proceeding was adopted more than two years after the rule in question became effective, and thus could not have supported HRS's interpretation during the rule's first two years of operation. Moreover, that objective is directly at odds with the provisions in subpart 11.a.(I). Finally, the proponents argue that if the rule is interpreted in the manner suggested by LMRC and TGH, a new program could never be authorized if a district had an approved program since an approved program is not yet operational and obviously could not achieve the 350 threshold. They argue that such a construction would be illogical and absurd. However, it is noted that the rule provides that a new program can be authorized by HRS if not normal circumstances are shown even if the 350 threshold is not being satisfied. Indeed, HRS has granted at least three open heart CONs based on not normal circumstances. In November 1982 HRS was in the process of considering changes to the rules pertaining to CON applications for both cardiac catherization laboratories and open heart surgery programs. In response to a staff suggestion, HRS amended its cardiac catherization laboratory rule by changing the existing utilization provisions to require that an average of 600 adult catherizations be used as a utilization threshold for the review of applications rather than a requirement that each laboratory in the district be performing 500 adult catherizations. This amendment was made because HRS recognized that by using the word "average", the authorization of new laboratories would "not be impeded by a few or even one laboratory which is operating below the required minimum". In contrast, however, HRS chose not to amend its open heart rule to make a corresponding change. This was perhaps due to the fact that HRS initially interpreted the open heart rule to mean what it literally says and early on denied at least one application because each existing program in the service district was not performing 350 or more procedures per year. Expert testimony established good health planning reasons why the rule should be applied as written and why the incipient policy being used by HRS is improper. Given the undisputed relationship between the quality of an open heart surgery program and its volume, it is gold health planning to allow newly approved providers to become operational and reach the 350 procedure level as soon as possible and before new programs are authorized. If the 350 averaging procedure was used, new programs could be approved even though there were existing programs in the area, as here, maintaining an annual volume substantially below 350 procedures. The inevitable result would be to drive down the utilization in most or all of the programs. Indeed, HRS undertook no formal analysis in this proceeding to determine if the approval of a new program would force the utilization rate of any existing provider below the 350 threshold. In the absence of not normal circumstances, it is found that the provisions of subpart 11.a.(I) have not been met. Amendments or Updates? At issue in this proceeding is the admissibility of certain information proffered by WHH at hearing which was not contained in the original application. This includes (a) certain pro forma financial projections and (b) proposed changes to the staffing and equipment. These are discussed in greater detail below. It should be noted here that any changes to facilities, beds or staffing outlined in the application would be a "significant" amendment to the proposal from a health planning perspective as it would change the projected costs of the operation in both the long-term and short-term. Moreover, HRS's expert agreed that WHH is bound by the projections in the application and omissions response. The original application contained pro forma financial projections to justify the financial feasibility of the project. This is the same "detailed financial projection" that is statutorily required to be filed with the application. At hearing, WHH introduced into evidence, subject to petitioners' objections, new pro formas to demonstrate that the program would be financially feasible. This new analysis was substantially different than the pro formas submitted to HRS by WHH and was not reviewed by HRS prior to deeming the application complete. In the application reviewed by HRS, WHH represented that it intended to hire five additional personnel, including two scrub technicians, two registered nurses, and one perfusionist for a single surgical team. At hearing, WHH presented several proposed changes in its staffing and equipment plans. First, WHH suggested that The Watson Clinic would supply the perfusionist and certain other personnel for its surgical team, although it projected no costs for those personnel. Secondly, WHH suggested it could equip and staff a back-up operating room and could train surgical and ICU nurses currently employed at WHH to become proficient in the care of open heart patients, rather than hiring additional nurses. Again, no additional costs were submitted with these new proposals. These changes were not reviewed by HRS prior to deeming the application complete. The applicant was made aware that its proposal did not provide for adequate facilities, beds, or staffing prior to the filing of its application. This advice was conveyed to WHH by its own consultant in September 1988. For whatever reason, at that time WHH chose not to adopt the more costly recommendation of its consultant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Winter Haven Hospital, Inc. for a certificate of need to authorize the establishment of an open heart surgery program be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact St. Anthony's is a 434 bed nonprofit acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida. On September 15, 1987, St. Anthony's filed an application for a CON to establish and implement an open heart surgery program in its facility. The Department filed a notice of intent to deny the application in January, 1988, and thereafter, St. Anthony's filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to contest the denial. Intervenors, All Children's and Bayfront sought and were granted leave to intervene in the proceeding. By Pre-hearing Stipulation, the parties have agreed to the following Findings of Fact: Each of the parties has a record of providing good quality of care. The licensure and accreditation of each party is not at issue and need not be proven. The equipment proposed by St. Anthony's in its application is adequate and the costs projected for that equipment are reasonable. The staffing levels and related salaries as proposed by St. Anthony's in its application are appropriate and reasonable. The architectural plans and related costs for St. Anthony's proposed project are appropriate and reasonable. The total project costs proposed by St. Anthony's in its application are appropriate and reasonable. St. Anthony's has the ability to finance the project costs. Projected revenues and expenses set out in the pro forma financial projections by St. Anthony's are reasonable. St. Anthony's presently provides a full range of acute, general, medical, and surgical services, and surgical subspecialties including neuro- surgery, maxillofacia surgery, thoracic surgery, and peripheral vascular surgery. It also offers broad psychiatric, substance abuse, and obstetrical services and a full time emergency room capability. It also provides cardiology services including cardiac catheterization. It has a historic commitment to cardiology services, establishing a cardiac catheterization lab in 1961, a coronary care unit in 1968, and a holter monitor service in 1973. In 1975, it established the community's first echocardiography laboratory, and as early as 1965, seriously considered establishing an open heart surgery program at the facility. This program was not, however, developed at the time. St. Anthony's continued its involvement in the area of cardiography and its program covers a full array of diagnostic services including echocardiography, nuclear cardiography, and basic electrocardiography, and possesses a magnetic resonance imaging unit which can be used in the diagnosis of heart problems. Additionally, it has a well equipped vascular laboratory and peripheral vascular disease program as well as a cardiac rehabilitation program and a wellness center that is aimed at early identification and prevention. St. Anthony's is also the site of the Rogers Heart Foundation, a nonprofit, privately funded foundation established in the late 1950's to perform research, education, and clinical diagnostic studies in the field of cardiovascular diseases. As a result of the activities of the foundation, St. Anthony's is well known by physicians in the area as a center for cardiac training and expertise, and until recently, was a participant with Emory University in that institution's cardiac fellowship training program. St. Anthony's has a long tradition in the service area for providing indigent services and is one of the major providers of charity and indigent care in Pinellas County. This care is provided through direct free care to patients as well as discounted charges and the write-off of bad debts. It also provides services through Medicaid and through write-off of Medicare deductible and coinsurance portions of patients' charges. All Children's Hospital is a 113 bed children's hospital located in St. Petersburg approximately two miles from St. Anthony's. It is a full service tertiary facility which serves as a referral center for children from throughout the State of Florida and currently has an approved CON for an additional 55 beds. Following construction, which is due to begin in February, 1989, All Children's will have 6 operating rooms, 2 cardiac catheterization labs, and 5 additional surgical intensive care unit beds for a total of 13 ICU beds. At the present time it has 2 operating rooms used for open heart surgery and 2 cardiac catheterization labs. The hospital has a strong affiliation with the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa. All Children's open heart program began several years after the hospital opened its first cardiac catheterization lab for children in the early 1970's. This came about when several cardiologists whose patients were primarily adult, and who were unable to utilize the facilities at the Rogers Heart Foundation because of its closed status, asked to make use of All Children's cardiac catheterization unite. Since this was consistent with All Children's efforts to increase the quality of its program through higher volume, All Children's began making its services available to adults admitted to Bayfront Hospital, a neighboring facility, with cardiac catheterization done by the patient's cardiologist in the All Children's facility. All Children's currently has 3 pediatric cardiologists and approximately 12 to 15 adult cardiologists on staff. The primary cardiac surgical team consists of Drs. Daicoff and Botero. At the present time, approximately 34% of the adult and pediatric patients treated at All Children's are Medicaid patients. Uncompensated indigent care provided at All Children's ranged from 16.52% in 1986 to 18.03% in 1987 and Medicaid patient days ranged from 30.4% in 1986 to 34.2% in 1987. Bayfront's uncompensated care was 22.15% in 1986 and 23.93% in 1987 while Medicaid patient days for that facility were 7.6% in 1986 and 8.9% in 1987. St. Anthony's devoted 1.2% of its total patient days in 1986 to Medicaid patients and 2.3% of it's total patient days in 1987. Bayfront is a 518 bed not-for-profit, full service acute care hospital located in St. Petersburg adjacent to All Children's. It was founded prior to 1968 as Mound Park Hospital, owned by the City of St. Petersburg, but in 1968, separated from city ownership and became known as Bay front Medical Center. Its mission is to provide care to all citizens in St. Petersburg and the surrounding area regardless of their ability to pay, and it offers a full range of services with the pediatric component provided by its neighbor, All Children's. It has 450 physicians on medical staff. Bayfront serves as a teaching hospital working in conjunction with the University of South Florida Medical School and providing a residency program in Pinellas County covering the entire spectrum of health care training at the facility. Bayfront runs a comprehensive cancer service approved by the American College of Surgeons and its obstetrical and gynecological women's service accounts for approximately 4,500 births per year. With All Children's, it participates in a prenatology program for high risk mothers and infants as part of a regional care program. Bayfront provides helicopter emergency coverage for its trauma center which averages 50,000 emergency room visits per year. The trauma service, staffed on a 24 hour a day basis by a full complement of surgeons, includes open heart surgery capability available for trauma related heart surgery needs. All Children's and Bayfront are connected to each other by an enclosed passageway. Taken together, the primary service area of the three hospital parties to this action is the southern half of Pinellas County up to approximately Ulmerton Road. Because of their geographical proximity to each other and their diverse but complementary populations, All Children's and Bayfront have developed working programs on a shared service basis in an effort to hold down the cost of health care in the community and to avoid unnecessary duplication of service. The Department has recognized and continues to recognize the shared nature of the All Children's/Bayfront open heart surgery program and the Boards of Directors of both institutions, as early as 1975, agreed to share open heart surgery services. The shared program for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery are now known as the "Cardiac Center of Excellence". Under the "Center" concept, diagnostic services are shared. All Children's Hospital's previously described cardiac catheterization laboratory and its non-invasive diagnostic study equipment is complemented by Bayfront's cardiac catheterization laboratory and its non-invasive diagnostic services including EKG, 2-D echo color flow doppler, magnetic resonance imaging, holter monitoring, and stress testing. Not only are diagnostic services shared by the two facilities but therapeutic services are shared as well. All Children's provides 2 open heart surgery operating suites, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, laser angioplasty, and intensive care units for children and adult post operative patients. Bayfront provides laser angioplasty and its cardiac catheterization laboratory has the capability to do emergency angioplasty procedures. Once these have been accomplished, Bayfront has a coronary care unit, a surgical unit for post operative patients, and a progressive care unit for its adult patients progressing toward discharge. Transportation services are also shared as are rehabilitation services. All Children's mobile intensive care unit is available to provide ground transportation for adults and children and it has entered into appropriate cardiac transportation protocols with outlying hospitals. Bayfront provides helicopter transportation for children and adults to its trauma center and, too, has appropriate cardiac transportation protocols similar to those entered into by All Children's. This joint program, which has grown to provide up to date, sophisticated, high quality cardiac care to both adults and children, minimizes operating costs and capital investment. An entire range of cardiac services is available with highly trained physicians and professional staff and state of the art equipment and facilities to both adult and pediatric patients. When an adult patient requires open heart surgery at the "Center", he is admitted to Bayfront the day prior to surgery where preliminary preparation is accomplished. On the day of surgery, the patient is prepared and Bayfront personnel transport the patient through the underground connection to All Children's where the actual surgery takes place. Subsequent to the surgery, the patient will normally be kept over night at All Children's in a surgical ICU whereupon, barring complications, he is then transferred by Bay front personnel back to Bay front to continue recovery in a cardiac surgical ICU. The remainder of the recovery period, usually lasting about one week for an uncomplicated case, is accomplished at Bayfront, and upon completion of recovery, the patient is discharged from that hospital, returning there for out patient treatment in Bayfront's cardiac rehabilitation program. In an emergency situation, when an adult patient is presented directly to All Children's for angioplasty, All Children arranges with Bayfront to admit the patient there within 24 hours. For non-Medicare patients, each facility bills the appropriate insurance carrier or patient for the charges for services rendered by each hospital. The Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement mechanisms by which All Children's and Bayfront are paid for providing open heart surgery differ substantially from the norm. The Health Care Finance Administration, which administers thee Medicare program recognizes the Bayfront/All Children's shared open heart surgery program for adults and has structured its reimbursement mechanism in an appropriate manner to accommodate that shared status. The normal method of fixed DRG payments is not followed. Because of accreditation requirements, the process becomes somewhat complicated in that the patient must be discharged from one facility and admitted to the other for surgery and vice-versa for recovery. However, representatives of both facilities claim, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that this procedure does not impose any burden on the patient or his family nor does it affect the quality of care. In fact, under the program, both facilities have been able to maintain an excellent quality of care. The physicians who practice there and who testified for St. Anthony's, indicated some scheduling problems relating to the availability of operating rooms at a time desired by the surgeon, but these problems have not affected quality of care and are being resolved through more acute scheduling and the addition of the 2 new surgical suites at All Children's. Between the two facilities, there are 15 cardiologists on both staffs who refer open heart patients for surgery. There are also 3 cardiovascular surgeons on staff at the two facilities, all of whom are members of the same physician group which exclusively performs open heart surgery under the shared program and which provides backup for all angioplasties in the "Center" program. One of these, Dr. Daicoff, indicated that although he would prefer the development of a single state of the art heart institute to serve the future needs of southern Pinellas County, he and his group would provide angioplasty backup as well as do surgery at St. Anthony's if the capability were approved and if he could be convinced that the St. Anthony's program would achieve the same level of high quality currently enjoyed by Bayfront and All Children's. Recognizing that the likelihood of a centralized heart institute is remote, Dr. Daicoff favors the approval of St. Anthony's program. Open heart surgery is currently being performed at two other hospitals in HRS District V, (Pinellas and Pasco Counties). These are the Largo Medical Center and Morton F. Plant Hospital, both of which are located close to the Ulmerton Road dividing line in the center of Pinellas County. These two facilities provide the majority of open heart surgery in the northern portion of Pinellas County and in Pasco County. Nonetheless, an open heart program at Bayonet Point Hospital in Pasco County was approved in December, 1987, not because of numerical need for the project, but because the applicant also sought approval for cardiac catheterization services. In that case, a need was shown for cardiac catheterization services in Pasco County, and a lab at Bayonet Point was approved. Because of the Department rule requiring open heart surgery backup within 30 minutes of a cardiac catheterization lab, no such backup otherwise being available for the Bayonet Point facility, its program was approved as well. The service area for open heart surgery for the three hospital parties to this proceeding is the St. Petersburg, Florida area. At the present time there are no major referrals to All Children's for open heart surgery from outside this area to the adult program operated in conjunction with Bayfront. The adult program at All Children's/Bayfront is centered around southern Pinellas County, an area in which the rate of growth is somewhat constant and not significant. The majority of growth in the county is located in the north end. For the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, 268 adult open heart surgery procedures were performed at All Children's. During the same period, 160 children's cases were performed. During 1984, 257 adult and 48 pediatric open heart surgeries were performed at All Children's; during 1985, 215 adult and 75 pediatric; during 1986, 258 adult and 46 pediatric; and during 1987, 268 adult and 72 pediatric. If all theatres at All Children's were operated on a capacity basis, as many as 520 open heart procedures could be accomplished. This would require performing 2 surgeries per day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year. At the present time, nowhere near this load is being carried. St. Anthony's contends this would not be realistic. However, additional capacity exists at All Children's to accommodate increased open heart surgery if required. The proper time frame for determining the "actual use rate" referenced in the Department's rule for determining need assessment for new open heart surgery services is July, 1986 through June, 1987. During that period, 299 procedures, including pediatric, were performed at All Children's with 432 total procedures being performed at Largo and 392 at Morton F. Plant. This constitutes a total of 1,123 open heart procedures within the District. St. Anthony's contends that open heart surgery procedures by themselves, however, are net the only factor for consideration. Cardiac catheterization is no longer merely a diagnostic procedure but constitutes a place for acute intervention. Cardiac catheterization practice has increased radically and has carried with it an increase in open heart surgeries. St. Anthony's cannot fully implement a cardiac catheterization program by adding angioplasty without the concomitant open heart surgery capability required for the full operation of angioplasty and its related programs. Without an open heart capability at St. Anthony's, it's ability to provide a full array of non- open heart cardiac catheterization services is constrained. It urges that from a medical standpoint, it would be beneficial to the patient to have acute intervention and angioplasty available at that hospital rather than , as is presently the case, disrupting cardiac care and courting the danger of additional coronary problems, the risk of which is increased when a patient must be transported to another hospital for the angioplasty and acute intervention procedures. St. Anthony's asserts that it will lose its reputation, built up over a period of 40 years, for a continuum of quality care if it is not permitted to provide the required surgical background for acute intervention and angioplasty. This is, however, only speculation not supported by any evidence of record. Rule 10-5.011(f), F.A.C. contains a methodology for determining numerical need for new programs and utilization guidelines for existing and approved programs which the Department uses when assessing the need for new open heart surgery services. Under the terms of the rule, the Department is to consider applications in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria and will not normally approve applications for new open heart surgery programs in a service area unless the conditions of subparagraphs 8 and 11 are met. Subparagraph 8 provides a formula for computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area for the year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service. This is to be not more than two years into the future. This number, projected for the target year, is determined by multiplying the actual use rate, (the number of procedures per 100,000 population) in the service area for the twelve month period beginning fourteen months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the batching cycle, by the projected population in the service area in the year service is to be initiated. As was stated above, the proper time frame for determining actual use was July, 1986 through June, 1987, and during that period, a total of 1,123 procedures, including pediatric procedures, were performed at the three existing facilities in District V. Midway through the fiscal year cited above, the total population in District V was 1,082,797, resulting in an actual use rate of 103.7 procedures per 100,000 population. The population projection for the planning horizon is 1,135,819 persons as July 1, 1989, and when the actual use rate of 103.7 per 100,000 is applied, it is anticipated that 1,178 will be performed by July, 1989, the first projected year for the St. Anthony's program, if approved. Once one has arrived at the projected number of procedures in the target year by applying the methodology contained in paragraph 8 of the rule, one turns to the provisions of subparagraph 11 of the rule which provides for no additional open heart surgery programs unless: ... the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year; Subparagraph 11b provides: No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which will reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. In the state agency action report, the Department, in computing need for additional open heart programs, utilized a figure of 1,065 procedures in determining actual use rate which excluded surgeries performed upon children within the district at All Children's. At the hearing, the Department's representative, Mr. Jaffe, agreed that it would be more appropriate to utilize the entire number of procedures, including pediatric, (1,123), in order to develop a more accurate use rate. That is the figure which was used in the analysis in this Recommended Order. From a review of the provisions of subparagraph 11 of the rule, the 350 procedure standard is to be applied once estimated procedures during the target year are established. Since subparagraph 11a(I) provides for service volume of existing and approved programs, utilization of that figure results in a need for 3.4 programs based on the 1989 estimated procedures. Since 3 programs currently exist, (All Children's/Bayfront, Largo, and Morton F. Plant), and Bayonet Point's program has been approved, this results in a .6 open heart surgery program surplus. Even if Bayonet Point's program is not considered, then a need exists for only .4 programs which, when rounded down, is not sufficient to approve an additional program. Turning to the utilization provisions of subparagraph 11, it has been the Department's policy to determine utilization of existing programs for the time period over which the use rate is computed, here, July, 1986 through June, 1987. During that period, only 241 adult open heart procedures were performed at Bayfront/All Children's, and in the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, the combined program accounted for 268 adult procedures. These numbers are not inconsistent with those used by St. Anthony's when adjustments are made to account for that portion of the total surgery figure which pertains to pediatric patients. They are also below the cutoff figure of 350 adult procedures for all existing or approved facilities in the District. St. Anthony's expert witness, Dr. Kolb, advanced an alternative theory that the "actual use rate" in the methodology established by rule should be adjusted to account for the out-migration of residents of District V to facilities outside the District for open heart surgery. She contended that the actual use rate had to account for all open heart surgeries performed on District residents regardless of where that surgery took place. If that theory were to be applied, then the total number of surgeries for the relevant time frame would have to increased from 1,123 to 1,883, and if that figure is incorporated in the rule computation, utilizing the 350 procedure unit of division, the calculation would show a 2.6 new program need if Bayfront Point were not taken into consideration. If it were, then the need, according to the expert, would be 1.6. Utilizing the Department's policy of rounding up or down as appropriate, even taking into account Bayonet Point, there would be a need for 2 new programs. However, St. Anthony's position is not well taken here. There is nothing in the Department's rule which by any reasonable interpretation can include an adjustment for out-migration. The Department has consistently applied its own rule to include only procedures performed at facilities in the district to determine actual use rate and this interpretation is both reasonable and justified. By statute, the Department is required to apply a uniform methodology. The data base available from all of the various districts within the state is not conducive to an application of an adjustment since double counting and the lack of uniformity appear inherent in any non-specified adjustment attempt. Another flaw in the expert's theory is that out-migrating patients would be recaptured by the development of additional programs within the district. This is not a justified assumption in that the out-migration occurs even though there is currently an underutilized capability within the district and it becomes obvious that many out-migrators go elsewhere for reasons totally unrelated to the availability of quality care within the district. Further, there is a substantial question as to the reliability of the data relied upon by St. Anthony's expert in her calculation of an assumed out-migration percentage. The expert relied upon Med Par data which reports on Medicare patients constituting 55 to 60 percent of the District V population. The expert's assumption that the same percentage of non-Medicare patients would out-migrate as Medicare patients do, is erroneous because experience has established that Medicare referral patterns do not necessarily match those appropriate to the rest of the population. Another factor to consider is that a substantial number of the people who make up the District V population are seasonal residents and many of these individuals return for major surgery, especially of an elective or non-emergency nature, to those areas from which they have come and with which they are most familiar and comfortable. St. Anthony's expert, in addition to suggesting an alternative to actual use rate, also suggests that instead of using a 350 procedure figure in calculating numerical need, a 200 procedure figure be used because of the independent pediatric program at All Children's Hospital. The Department urges that this be rejected on the basis that it ignores certain salient factors. One of these is that for the purpose of applying rule standards, All Children's/Bayfront's shared service qualifies as a single existing open heart surgery program. Also, open heart procedures, by their nature highly specialized and complex, require costly, highly specialized manpower and facility resources and the application of the rule procedure standard is, even in the eyes of Petitioner's planner, designed to limit unnecessary duplication of resources while maintaining a high quality of care. Petitioner shows no legitimate health care planning purpose for using any figure other than that called for by the rule and applied by the Department, which is found to be reasonable and appropriate. Moreover, there is a limited pool of nurses available to staff the specialized functions of an open heart surgery program or a CCU incident thereto. The nursing staff which works in these units is made up of specially trained individuals critical to the success of the program and it is generally difficult to recruit this caliber of nurse. In the event an additional facility, Petitioner, is authorized to establish its own separate program, it will have a substantial adverse impact on the staff situation at the existing facilities, and if basic economic principles apply, could result in an increase in nursing costs and a related increase in health care charges. Another factor to be considered is the potential for loss of patients at Bayfront/All Children's if the St. Anthony's operation is begun. One witness estimates a 42 percent (110 adult procedure) loss to Bayfront/All Children's based on the reasonable assumption that several of the cardiologists on staff at St. Anthony's, who currently refer patients to the group performing open heart surgery at All Children's, would begin to refer their patients to the "in house" capability at St. Anthony's where the surgery, now being performed at All Children's, would henceforth be accomplished. It is reasonable to expect that a substantial, if not 42 percent, loss will occur, and taken together, the loss of referrals and the loss of staff to St. Anthony's by the opening of that program would have a substantial adverse impact on the open heart surgery program at All Children's/Bayfront. This potential diminishment in the efficiency and quality of care in the existing open heart surgery program at All Children's/Bayfront, which may come about as the result in the reduction in number of adult patients treated there is not justified in that there is no showing that any group in District V, including the medically indigent, are receiving less than adequate treatment. Even assuming there 1:3 no need established utilizing the Department's numerical methodology, an applicant can successfully apply for a certificate of need if it shows there are "not normal" circumstances justifying award of the certificate. It has long been the Department's position that these "not normal" circumstances be raised by the applicant in the application prior to the completeness deadline in order for them to be legitimately heard, considered, and resolved at hearing. Review of the application submitted by St. Anthony's in this case fails to reveal that the applicant alleged or demonstrated any "not normal" circumstances and even that which might be so considered, the out- migration theory previously discussed herein, was not raised in the application, but only in the testimony of St. Anthony's expert at the hearing. Petitioner has shown no problems regarding financial accessibility nor has it shown that any identifiable subgroup within the district is having difficulty obtaining open heart services. Indigent patients are being served effectively and it was demonstrated that, as currently constituted, All Children's and Bayfront both provide a higher percentage of indigent care than does applicant, St. Anthony's. Assuming approval of St. Anthony's application, there is no indication it will increase its percentage of indigent care in the open heart surgery area above that which it already provides in the other services offered. Rule 10-5.011(f)4(a), FACE requires access to open heart surgery services within two hours for at least 90 percent of the service area population. There is no evidence offered by Petitioner to indicate that this standard is not being met by the existing facilities. St. Anthony's has not established by competent evidence its ability to recruit and maintain adequate, experienced staff to implement its open heart program if approved though, in reality, this may well be one of the lesser problems involved and, as was stated previously, there was no showing that approval of its program would, by enhancing competition, lower costs for health care services. Quite the contrary, it appears that St. Anthony's program would constitute an unnecessary duplication of a specialized service and would have an adverse impact upon the All Children's/Bayfront program and, possibly, the others within the district. Petitioner's evidence of prospective charges for open heart surgery, showing it to anticipate lower charges than Largo and Plant, is somewhat irrelevant in that those two facilities are located in an area of the district which does not fall within the primary service area considered here. Petitioner contends that the Department's approval of a CON for open heart surgery by Humana-Brandon, in District VI, and its approval of a certificate for open heart surgery for Tallahassee Community Hospital, in District III, are inconsistent with its denial of its application in District V. For a variety of reasons, other than the fact that the districts are different and the conditions dissimilar, there is little inconsistency involved. Granting approval of a CON for open heart surgery to St. Anthony's creates a legitimate concern that approval would cause the currently existing All Children's/Bayfront program to drop well below the 200 annual procedures considered necessary for quality of care. Further, in the Tallahassee area, a "not normal" situation existed which does not exist here. The geographical separation of alternative facilities in the Tallahassee area is substantially different and creates an entirely different picture that which exists in the District V/District VI area. Taken together, then, it is found that application of the numerical need and ancillary provisions of rule 10-5.011, F.A.C. demonstrates no numerical need for a new program and approval and implementation of St. Anthony's application would likely result in a diminishment, as opposed to enhancement, of the quality of open heart surgery care in the District as well as an increase rather than a decrease in health care costs. Further, it is found that there are no "not normal" circumstances, aliunde the numerical need, to justify approval of Petitioner's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Anthony's Hospital for approval of a certificate of need to establish and operate an open heart surgery program at its facility in St. Petersburg, Florida be denied. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0637 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By St. Anthony's Hospital: Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted in so far as open heart surgery is not done at Bayfront. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein 14. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein 23. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected as not proven Rejected Rejected & 31. Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected & 34. Accepted and incorporated herein Last sentence rejected. Balance accepted. & 37. Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein Rejected. There was no showing any patient from St. Anthony's has been harmed by transfer to All Children's nor that patients or their families are dissatisfied. - 42. Rejected as not supported by evidence of record. 43. - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein 48. & 49. Accepted 50. & 51. Accepted as to total procedures in District V but rejected as to the conclusion that-all existing providers are performing at a level of more than 350 adult open heart surgeries per year. While Largo and Plant may, All Children's/Bayfront is not. 52. & 53. Accepted Rejected as not supported by the evidence Accepted as a cite to the pertinent rule - 59. Rejected. Out-migration is not a proper factor for consideration under statute or rule Accepted as to the rule not addressing mixed programs. - 63. Rejected as not consistent with the rule and proper implementation of the need methodology thereunder. The conclusion that all existing programs in District 10 are currently operating at more than 350 procedures annually is rejected. All Children's is not. Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein & 68. Rejected. Use of figures attributable to out- migration is not provided for or permitted by the rule. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Irrelevant. Even if true, there is no showing of the reason or that petitioner would capture these patients. Accepted Accepted Accepted & 76. Rejected. Cited provision of application stated "may" indicate, not "did' indicate. In addition, MEDPAR data relates only to Medicare patients and an extrapolation of that figure is not necessarily reliable. Accepted Accepted but not considered controlling in that the rule provides time reference for use in the methodology. Not established & 81. Accepted 82. Rejected as not supported by any independent evidence of record. Accepted - 87. Accepted 88. & 89. Rejected. Bayfront's application was withdrawn. 90. Accepted By the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1.-18. Accepted and incorporated herein 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein & 23. Accepted and incorporated herein 24. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein 27. - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein 30. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein 33. & 34. Accepted and incorporated herein 35. Accepted and incorporated herein 36. & 37. Accepted 38. - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein 41. No ruling. Not understood. 42. Accepted and incorporated herein 43. Accepted and incorporated herein 44. Accepted and incorporated herein 45. - 47. Accepted and incorporated herein 48. Accepted 49. - 55. Accepted and incorporated herein 56. Accepted 57. Accepted and incorporated herein 58. & 59. Accepted and incorporated herein 60. & 61. Accepted and incorporated herein 62. Accepted and incorporated herein 63. & 64. Accepted 65. Accepted and incorporated herein 66. Accepted 67. Accepted and incorporated herein 68. Accepted 69. Accepted By All Children's Hospital 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein 4. & 5. Accepted 6. & 7. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact 8. & 9. Accepted 10. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein 20. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein 23. & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein 28. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein 31. & 32. Accepted Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein By Bayfront Medical Center 1. - 3. Not Findings of Fact 4. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein 11. & 12. Not Findings of Fact 13. - 49. Accepted and incorporated herein 50. & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein 52. & 53. Accepted and incorporated herein 64. - 56. Accepted and incorporated herein 57. - 68. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein - 72(c). Accepted and incorporated herein 72(d). Argument, not Finding of Fact 72(e).- 72(1). Accepted and incorporated herein Not a Finding of Fact Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 77. Accepted Not a Finding of Fact - 81. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein - 86. Accepted and incorporated herein 87. & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein Merely a comment on the evidence Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 95. Accepted Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein & 99. Accepted 100. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ivan Wood, Esquire Wood, Lusksinger & Epstein Four Houston Center 1221 Lamar, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77010 John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1200 Carnegie Building 133 Carnegie Way Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Steven M. Presnell, Esquire Lee Elzie, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison and Kelly 804 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire H. Darrell White, Jr., Esquire McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley and Cassedy, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Venice Hospital, Inc., (Venice) meets the statutory and rule criteria for a Certificate of Need (CON) to operate an open heart surgery program, and therefore, whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) should approve its CON Application Number 5715.
Findings Of Fact The Parties 1. Venice is a 342 bed general hospital located in Venice, Florida, which is in south Sarasota County and is a part of the Department's Service District There are no subdistricts in District 8 for open heart surgery. The majority of patients served by Venice are from 50-55 years of age or older, and 22%-25% of patients admitted to Venice have a primary diagnosis of heart disease. If patients with heart disease as a secondary diagnosis are considered along with those who have this as their primary diagnosis, the total represents over 40% of all patients admitted at Venice. Of the cardiac catheterization patients treated at Venice in 1988, 78% were Medicare patients. Venice is a Medicaid provider, projecting 1.6% of its total revenue from Medicaid. It has a critical care center with 32 beds capable of invasive monitoring, multi-infusion of medications, pacemakers, Swans Ganz catheters, and care of post- catheterization patients. A separate 8-bed unit has been designated for use by open heart patients, with the same monitoring capability as the remainder of the unit. Memorial is an acute care hospital located in Sarasota, Florida, and is governed by the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board, which is elected to provide health care services to all residents of Sarasota County. It provides a full range of services, including an open heart surgery program, and is the largest provider of services to medically indigent and Medicaid patients in Sarasota County. Medical Center is a 208 bed not-for-profit hospital located in Punta Gorda, Florida, which has provided cardiac catheterization since 1985, and has been approved to initiate an open heart surgery program which is scheduled to open in late 1989. It has a 5% Medicaid payor mix. The primary service area for Medical Center is Charlotte County. Its secondary service area includes south Sarasota County. Both Memorial and Medical Center are also located in District 8, with Venice located between these facilities. Venice is approximately 35 miles to the north of Medical Center, and about 25 miles to the south of Memorial. There are two existing open heart programs in District 8, one at Memorial and the other at Southwest Regional Medical Center in Ft. Myers. In addition, there are two approved, but not yet operational, open heart programs, one at Medical Center and the other at Lee Memorial in Ft. Myers. The Department is the state agency which is responsible for administering Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes, the "Health Facility and Services Development Act", under which applications for Certificates of Need (CON) are filed, reviewed, and either granted or denied by the Department. The Application On or about September 27, 1988, Venice filed an application with the Department for a CON to implement an open heart surgery program at its hospital in Venice, Florida, with a capital expenditure of $665,500. This application was designated as CON Application Number 5715. The Department reviewed this application, and in October, 1988, forwarded an omissions letter to Venice. Venice responded to the omissions letter, and addressed not only the items noted by the Department in its omissions letter, but also provided additional materials, information, and corrections not requested in the omissions letter. Effective on November 14, 1988, the Department deemed Venice's application complete. A public hearing was held on this application at the request of Memorial on November 18, 1988. Thereafter, the Department reviewed and considered all material received from the applicant, as well as the information received at the public hearing, and prepared its State Agency Action Report (SAAR) noticing its intent to grant CON 5715. Memorial and Medical Center timely filed petitions to challenge the Department's notice of intent to issue this CON. Venice is relying upon its application which was deemed complete and reviewed by the Department in its SAAR, and not upon its original application that was filed prior to the omissions letter. Additionally, the applicant is not relying upon a "not normal circumstance" justification for its application, but rather urges that it meets the statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of this CON. The Department's CON Manual HRSM 235-1, dated October 1, 1988, is irrelevant to this proceeding since it has not been adopted by, or incorporated in, a rule, and was not applied in the batching cycle in which Venice's application was filed, or in the subsequent batch. It has not yet been applied to any hospital CON application. Therefore, the matters contained within this Manual concerning what is a permissible response to an omissions letter have not been considered. As part of its originally filed application, Venice included a document prepared by Ernst & Whinney entitled, "Audited Financial Statements and Other Financial Information, Venice Hospital, Inc., June 30, 1987." Through a clerical error in the copying process, page one of this twenty-four page document was omitted. At the time it filed its omissions response, Venice included this missing first page which is signed on behalf of Ernst & Whinney, and which states that the examinations contained therein were made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. It expresses the opinion that these financial statements present fairly the financial position of the applicant. An auditor's opinion letter is an essential part of the audited financial statement which must be included with the CON application. However, Venice provided this inadvertently missing page prior to its application being deemed complete. Thus, it was available to, and was reviewed by, the Department in the preparation of the SAAR on this application. Venice's application did raise concerns which it was seeking to address concerning availability and accessibility by addressing the current practice of transferring patients requiring open heart surgery to other facilities. Patient costs for such transport, as well as patient risk, inconvenience and comfort for the patient and family members, were all referenced in the application. Additionally, testimony at the public hearing held on November 18, 1988, which the Department considered in the preparation of its SAAR, dealt with concerns and problems arising from patient transport, including delay, risks to the patient from ambulance or helicopter transfers, and adverse effects which may occur on quality of care through this practice which is inconsistent with the concept of a continuum of care. The SAAR specifically notes that Venice contends its proposal will improve geographic access in its immediate service area, and that from July, 1987 through June, 1988, it transferred 144 of its cardiac patients from its facility for open heart surgery and an additional 125 were transferred for angioplasty procedures. The application did not specifically address or identify any adverse impact which its approval would have on existing providers. However, evidence on this issue is admissible at hearing since it is relevant to the issue of the standing of Memorial and Medical Center, and also because it is relevant to establish whether approval of this application would be consistent with statutory and rule review criteria, and provisions of the Local Health Plan that require assessment of any such impact. The SAAR notes that Venice did contend that approval of this CON will not affect the economy or quality of existing services in the District. Stipulations The parties stipulated that: The project is financially feasible in the short term; Venice has a record of providing quality care and this record is not an issue in this case; Other than for open heart services, other facilities are adequate and available to act as alternatives; The size and cost of construction for Venice's proposal are appropriate; Open heart surgery programs currently exist within a two hour drive time under average driving conditions for at least 90% of the District's population; The type and cost of equipment in the application are reasonable; If approved, Venice will provide the services required by Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)3a and 3b, Florida Administrative Code, and does provide the services shown at paragraph 3c of said Rule. State Health Plan Objective 4.2 of the State Health Plan applicable to this application is to "maintain an average of 350 open heart surgery procedures per program in each district through 1990." (Emphasis Supplied.) The goal set forth in the State Plan relative to open heart surgery programs is to ensure the appropriate availability of such services at reasonable costs. Venice's application is not consistent with Objective 4.2. If Venice's application were to be approved, there would be five programs in the District. The number of procedures projected for 1990 is 1683, and if 1683 is divided by 5 programs, the result is an average of only 337 procedures per program. The two existing providers in District 8 are currently performing over 1600 procedures annually, and as is discussed below, it does not appear that Venice itself will be able to achieve an acceptable level of service at any time established by the record in this case. Approval of this application will also significantly and adversely impact the ability of the two approved programs to achieve an acceptable level of service. In the State Health Plan narrative, it is recognized that "quality of patient care is a primary concern in open heart surgery programs due to the potential consequences to the patient of poorly trained and/or skilled staff.11 In order to ensure quality, and in recognition of the relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures and quality, the State Plan references the Department's requirement, set forth by Rule, that a minimum of 200 adult procedures be performed within 3 years of initiation of an open heart program. The narrative also notes that a broad range of services must be provided to fulfill the requirements of an open heart surgery program. Venice's application is partially consistent with these narrative statements in the State Health Plan since the parties have stipulated that it has a record of providing quality care, and it offers a complete range of services with departments within the hospital where a broad range of diagnostic techniques and expertise are available. However, it was not established that a minimum of 200 adult open heart surgical procedures will be performed at Venice within three years of initiation of this program. Local Health Plan Even though an applicant does not include within its application every element in a Local Health Plan which is relevant to its application, the Department itself will look at the applicable Local Plan to determine if an application is consistent therewith. The applicable District 8 Health Plan recommends that "existing facilities should be afforded the opportunity for expansion before developing a new cardiac surgical center." However, if a numeric need for an additional program is shown, and if existing facilities do not seek to expand their existing programs to meet such need, an application for a new program would not be inconsistent with this portion of the Local Health Plan. Under the facts of this case where there are no competing applications from hospitals with existing open heart surgery programs, and where a numeric need for one additional program in District 8 is projected by the Department's need methodology, Venice's application is consistent with this recommendation. The Local Plan also recommends that preference be given to applications for new or expanded programs which clearly document the impact of the proposed new service on existing providers in the District and adjacent Districts. As found above, Venice did not specifically address any adverse impact its proposal would have on existing providers, and therefore, its application is not consistent with this recommendation. The Department's Need Methodology and the "35O Rule" Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)8, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Department's methodology for calculating the numeric need for additional open heart surgery programs It provides a formula by which the number of open heart procedures for the horizon year, in this case 1990, are to be estimated. Pursuant to the formula, there are projected to be 1683 open heart surgery procedures performed in 1990 in District 8. This number of projected procedures is then divided by 350 procedures in order to determine the number of programs which will be needed. See Rule l0-5.011(1)(f)11b. Using this methodology, the Department has identified the need for 4.8, rounded to 5, programs in the District in the horizon year. Since there are currently 2 existing and 2 approved programs in District 8, the Department and Venice have concluded that there is a projected numeric need for Venice's additional program in 1990. There is a direct relationship between the volume of open heart surgery procedures performed at a facility and the quality of care provided at such facility, with lower mortality rates generally at hospitals with higher volumes than those with low volumes. Therefore, in addition to its numeric need calculation, the Department has also developed a "350 standard" to address patient safety and quality of care concerns by ensuring that each existing and approved open heart surgery program achieves a volume sufficient to assure quality and efficiency prior to approval of a new program. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)11aI, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the establishment of new open heart surgery programs unless: the service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart cases per year. Memorial and Medical Center urge an interpretation and application of the 350 standard in a manner which would require each existing and approved program to actually operate at the level of 350 cases per year. Since approved programs are not yet operational, and therefore cannot operate at the 350 level, they argue that the intent of this standard, as set forth in the above-cited Rule, is to preclude the approval of any additional programs while there are approved programs, or existing programs which are not meeting the 350 standard. To the contrary, the Department and Venice urge that the 350 standard be applied by averaging the actual number of cases at existing programs, and the number of cases which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs. Under this interpretation, as long as the average between cases which are performed at existing, and which are reasonably projected to be performed at approved programs exceeds 350, then the further approval of an additional program is not prohibited. Having considered the testimony and evidence presented by the parties, and in particular the testimony of Eugene Nelson and Elizabeth Dudek, which is found to be more credible, consistent, and reasonable than the testimony of Michael Carroll and Harold Luft, it is found that the Department's interpretation and application of the 350 standard is reasonable and consistent with the terms of Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)11aI. It is also noted that if the interpretation urged by Memorial and Medical Center were to be followed, it is inexplicable how there could presently be two approved, but not operational, open heart programs in District 8. The Department has consistently applied this 350 standard since its adoption in 1983 by averaging caseloads at existing programs and reasonably projected caseloads for approved programs. To interpret this standard as urged by Memorial and Medical Center would impose a moratorium on new open heart surgery programs while there is an already approved, but not operational, program in a District, or while a newly operational program has not yet attained the 350 standard. There is no basis for this prohibitory interpretation which would not only reduce competition, but would also be inconsistent with sound health planning and the State Health Plan Objective 4.2, as discussed above. Quality of Care Venice is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Facilities for special care units, and it has been stipulated that it has a record of providing quality care in its existing programs and departments. On average, hospitals performing greater than 200 open heart procedures per year have superior surgical outcomes than hospitals doing less than 200 procedures. Mortality rates are significantly lower at hospitals performing more than 200 procedures annually than at those performing less. It was established that there is a direct relationship between volume of open heart surgical procedures and quality of care at facilities with open heart surgery programs. Therefore, the existence of more open heart programs than are truly needed in an area may result in some existing programs not achieving sufficient volume to assure patient safety and quality of care. Certainly, not every hospital should have an open heart program, but as long as there is sufficient volume to assure quality, the competition among programs will encourage quality care, and result in an overall increase in the quality of care provided at all departments in a hospital with an open heart program. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)5d, Florida Administrative Code, was adopted by the Department in order to set forth the minimum volume deemed necessary to assure quality of care, and provides, in part: There shall be a minimum of 200 adult open heart procedures performed annually, within 3 years after initiation of service, in any institution in which open heart surgery is performed for adults. Although Venice urges that it will be able to meet this threshold level within three years, it failed to establish by competent substantial evidence that it would actually attract the patients necessary to perform either the number of open heart procedures projected in its application, or this minimum number of 200 procedures required by the Department to assure quality of care in its third year of operation, given the current pattern of physician referrals in the area, its market share in relation to those of Memorial and Medical Center, and actual utilization levels for the existing District 8 programs at Memorial and Southwest Regional Medical Center, as is more fully discussed below. Without the assurance of sufficient volume to meet the 200 procedure threshold established by the Department by Rule, the validity of which is not at issue in this case, Venice has failed to show that it will be able to achieve and maintain a patient volume in its proposed program which will assure quality of care in its proposed open heart surgery program. Availability and Access While the addition of the Venice program would obviously increase the availability of services in the District, open heart surgery services are already reasonably available in District 8, especially in view of there being two approved programs which will become operational before 1990, the horizon year in this case, in addition to the two existing programs. The two hour travel time standard is already being met in District 8, as stipulated to by the parties. Geographic accessibility will not be appreciably or significantly increased by this proposal since Venice's facility lies approximately midway between Memorial and Medical, which are sixty miles apart. There is significant excess capacity in existing and approved open heart surgery programs in District 8 during most of the year, especially at Memorial. Therefore, there is ready access to, and availability of open heart surgery services to patients in the District. Venice did not establish that approval of its application would enhance access to open heart surgery services for the medically indigent. Despite its assertion in its application that its program would be available to the underserved, there is no definite commitment to serve charity care patients as a percentage of total patient days or of total revenue. Venice has proposed to serve Medicaid patients at the level of 1.5% of total patient days, but Medicaid patients are currently receiving services through existing programs at substantially higher levels of commitment. The applicant has reserved the right to refuse non-emergency care to indigents. While it was established that unstable patients who have to be transferred from one hospital to another face increased risks, and that members of the medical staff at Venice feel that there are unacceptable delays in transferring patients who need open heart surgery from Venice to other facilities due to an asserted lack of available beds, it was not shown that such delays have actually jeopardized the safety of patients or resulted in a reduction in the quality of care received by patients to an unacceptable level. A delay in transferring a patient from one facility to another of from 6 to 8 hours is reasonable, and in line with experience nationally. The anecdotal evidence presented by Venice on this point was not competent and substantial, and in fact shows that the number of delays exceeding 8 hours has increased only slightly from 1986 to 1988, a condition that may be addressed in any event when the two approved programs become operational. Additionally, the applicant never formally shared any concerns about transfer delays with existing facilities in an effort to reduce such delays or to document extreme cases of delay. Transfer delays are exacerbated by seasonal increases in population in District 8, but there continues to be a reasonable likelihood that patient transfers can be accommodated, even during seasonal population increases, without adverse impacts to patient care. However, a large majority of open heart surgery cases are non- emergency that can be scheduled for surgery within 6 to 48 hours after diagnosis without any compromise in patient care. Emergency patients are given priority, and there are sufficient available beds to accommodate emergency patients, regardless of seasonal delays. Recent studies have shown that even emergency patients benefit from a delay of up to 24 hours in order to stabilize their condition rather than rushing them to surgery. In any event, such seasonal delays do not establish that there is a lack of available beds in District 8 which would require the approval of this application, especially with two approved programs already in the District which will become operational by 1990. Alternatives Considered Venice did not fully explore alternatives, including less costly alternatives, to a new program at its facility, such as a joint or shared program with an existing provider. In fact, a consultant retained by Venice recommended on September 8, 1988, that Venice pursue a joint program with Memorial, but Venice never approached Memorial to ascertain if its administrators or medical staff would be interested in such a joint effort, even though these two hospitals have previously cooperated in providing joint services in obstetrics, shared nursing services, and jointly provided emergency services to the Town of North Port. Memorial previously loaned Venice 24 nursing full time equivalent positions (FTE) to fully staff a 35 bed unit at Venice during a critical nursing shortage. There are existing or approved open heart surgery programs at Tampa General Hospital, Manatee Memorial Hospital in Bradenton, Memorial, Medical Center, and Southwest Regional Medical Center in Ft. Myers. In addition, there are additional approved programs at HCA Blake Memorial Hospital in Bradenton and at Lee Memorial in Ft. Myers. Venice did not consider these existing and approved programs as alternatives to its proposed new program. It was not established that Venice has attempted, or proposed to establish a joint open heart surgery program with any of these facilities, or to secure staff privileges for its cardiologists at Memorial, or any of these other hospitals. Regionalization of health care services for open heart surgery patients is being encouraged and reviewed by the Medicare program. Under this concept, primary care hospitals would treat common diagnoses and offer common treatments, while regional referral hospitals would provide specialized care and offer more complex services referred to as tertiary level services. Open heart surgery is a specialized, tertiary care service. Venice did not consider regionalization or establish why it would not be appropriate in District 8. Personnel Availability and Costs There has been a long-term shortage of nurses, particularly in intensive care and open heart surgery, which even Venice's expert in nursing administration recognized and acknowledged. This shortage is present in Sarasota County not merely for nursing staff, but also for technical support staff, and is particularly acute in operating room and critical care personnel. While Venice does have nursing staff with open heart surgery experience, it would have to recruit additional nurses to fully staff this new program. It is not always possible to fill open heart surgery or critical care nursing positions with trained personnel. Memorial presently has 32 registered nursing vacancies, including 5 open heart surgery and 3 open heart critical care RN positions, despite a full-time nurse recruiter and an aggressive recruiting program. Because of this critical shortage, Memorial has been forced to use "traveler" or temporary nurses in its open heart surgery unit. In contrast to Venice's lack of actual experience in attracting and training open heart surgery and critical care nurses, Memorial established that in Sarasota County, it takes 6 to 8 months and costs $15,000 to $16,000 to train open heart surgery nurses, and 6 to 8 weeks to- train open heart critical care nurses. Venice will compete with Memorial and Medical Center in attracting open heart surgery nursing and technical staff. There has been a recent instance of a nurse leaving Venice to join Memorial, being trained as an open heart surgery nurse at Memorial, and then leaving to return to Venice. With the limited pool of available, trained open heart surgery nurses, and in view of the two approved open heart surgery programs in District 8 which need to be staffed and become operational prior to 1990, the implementation of the Venice program will have an adverse impact on the ability of existing and approved programs to attract and maintain trained open heart surgery nursing and technical staff, and can reasonably be expected to increase personnel costs for these providers. Venice proposes to add two cardiovascular surgeons to its medical staff prior to opening its open heart surgery program, and to retain a consulting firm to assist in recruiting these physicians. However, the consulting firm contacted by Venice has not agreed to accept this recruiting assignment. Memorial has been trying to recruit an additional open heart surgeon for over a year, without success. Venice has been trying to recruit a neurosurgeon, neurologist or cardiologist for almost a year, without success. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that Venice will have difficulty recruiting two cardiovascular surgeons in less that one year. The salaries and benefits in Venice's application are generally reasonable, including the proposed salary for a perfusionist, although it did slightly underproject open heart surgery nursing salaries. However, its estimate of the number of additional positions, or FTE, which would be required throughout the hospital to accommodate the workload resulting from an open heart surgery program is incomplete. For example, an additional 3.5 FTE that would be needed for the clinical lab and donor center is not reflected in the application, although the costs associated therewith are included. Venice does have a record of successfully staffing critical care services, such as its open heart catheterization and thoracic surgery programs, without attracting staff from other hospitals in the District. It does propose to have a training program for open heart surgery personnel, and has an affiliation with nurse training programs at four universities. Financial Feasibility In its application, Venice projects that it will perform 125 open heart surgery procedures in its first year of operation, 175 in its second year, and 211 in its third year of operation. However, it is specifically found that these projections are not reasonable, based upon the testimony and evidence received. The testimony and exhibits prepared by Mark Richardson and Michael Carroll, who were accepted as experts in health planning, as well as the testimony offered by Rick Knapp, an expert in health care finance, was more credible and persuasive than, and outweighs the testimony and exhibits prepared by Eugene Nelson, an expert in health care planning, Dr. Henry W. Zaretsky, an expert in health care economics and planning, and Michael Rolph, who was accepted as an expert in health care finance and accounting. Initially, Venice relies upon the Department's Rule for determining the numeric need for additional programs, discussed above, and divides the Department's number of projected procedures in District 8 (1683) by 350 to arrive at the need for an additional program in 1990 by rounding 4.8 up to 5. However, Venice has conducted no analysis of market share or physician referral patterns to test the reliability of this projected need. Thus, this projection of numeric need is made in a vacuum, without any reference to the actual number of procedures already being performed, or actual market shares and referral patterns which are critical to an understanding of patient and physician preferences which have existed, and are likely to continue to be experienced, in the future. Venice's administration and members of its medical staff consider Memorial's open heart surgery program to be excellent and convenient to Venice's patients. It is unlikely that all five of Venice's cardiologists will refer all of their open heart surgery patients to Venice, and in fact, a member of Venice's medical staff who supports this application testified that he would only refer about half of his patients to Venice. Since most open heart patients are referred, and since there is no apparent dissatisfaction with the quality of Memorial's program, existing market share and referral patterns would likely continue and should have been considered in any meaningful analysis presented by the applicant. For the July, 1990 horizon in District 8, the Department's numeric need methodology projects that there will be 1683 open heart surgery procedures. With referral patterns in place and two existing providers with operational and well regarded programs, it is unlikely that Venice will have an automatic, equal share of the District's pool of open heart patients, or even that it will perform the 125 procedures in its first year, and 175 procedures shown on its pro forma for the second year of operation. In fact, the two existing providers, Memorial and Southwest Regional Medical Center, already performed 1637 procedures in 1988, leaving fewer than 50 procedures projected through the Department's numeric need methodology for the two already approved programs and Venice, if it were to be approved. Memorial has been performing over 600 procedures per year from 1986 through 1988, and has the capacity to perform up to 1,000 procedures annually. Thus, the existing and approved programs have more than sufficient capacity to absorb growth in open heart surgery volumes which are being projected. A second method Venice uses to justify its projected number of open heart procedures is to quantify the population of Venice's service area, and then apply the Department's open heart surgery use rate to that population. This assumes that virtually all of Sarasota County's population growth will occur in the south county area, which is an inaccurate assumption, and also assumes that Venice will capture all of the open heart surgeries in its service area, which is unreasonable given existing market shares and referral patterns. Memorial presently has a 42% market share of District 8 open heart surgery patients. To perform 200 procedures in its third year of operation, Venice would have to capture an 83% market share, and there is no basis to find that it would be successful in attracting this unreasonably high market share in its primary service area. In fact, Venice projects that it will only achieve a 45% and 61% market share in the first and second year of operation, respectively. Applying these percentages, Venice will perform 99 procedures in its first year, not 125, and 140 in its second year, not 175. It must be noted that Venice's consultant, which had recommended that it explore a joint or shared program with Memorial, had projected market shares of only 29% in the first year, 35% in the second year, and 45% in year three. Using these figures, Venice would only perform 63 procedures in its first year of operation, 81 in the second year, and 102 in the third. Given this level of operation in its second year of operation (81 procedures), the Venice program would lose $334,000 in its second year, and therefore, not be financially feasible. The third method used by the applicant to support its projection of the number of procedures it will perform, which is the basis of its assertion of financial feasibility, is based upon its assessment of cardiac catheterization volumes and applies a conversion factor to determine the number of open heart surgery procedures that will result. This analysis again assumes that it would receive a 100% market share, and does not take into account referral patterns and satisfaction with existing programs. In addition, while the growth of Venice's cardiac cath volume has stabilized, and may even be decreasing, this analysis incorrectly uses a l5%-16% annual growth rate in cardiac caths through 1990, which is unrealistic and not supported by the record. Venice relies upon the expert testimony of Eugene Nelson to establish that the use rate for open heart surgery has been increasing since 1985, and will continue to increase. The use rate increased over 53% between 1985 and 1988, and Nelson projects a continued 15.3% annual increase in the use rate through 1991. Under his projections the use rate per 100,000 population will be 235.79 in 1990, and 257.97 in 1991. Nelson's projected continued annual increase in the use rate of over 15%, and the use rates he projects for 1990 and 1991, are unreasonable. He has ignored the fact that annual increases in the use rate have been steadily decreasing from 17.5% between 1985 and 1986, to 13% between 1987 and 1988, as testified to be all health planners, and as even he acknowledged. Applying this decrease in the annual use rate increase, it would be increasing only 9% in 1990, and this would result in a total of 2108 procedures that could be projected to be performed in 1990. With the two existing programs in District 8 already performing 1600 procedures, a figure that will reasonably grow by 1990, there will be less than 444 procedures for the two already approved programs and Venice, if it were to be approved. Given this fact, which is even acknowledged by Venice, it is unlikely that Venice will be able to reach its projected number of cases in its first two years of operation in order to achieve financial feasibility. As recognized by Harold Urschel, Jr., M.D., who was called by Venice as an expert in cardiovascular surgery and open heart surgery programs, for the next five years open heart surgery volumes nationally will be "stable", although they "probably" will go up some. Open heart use rates have plateaued on a national level, with an average national use rate of l80~per 100,000 population. This use rate compares favorably with the Department's current use rate of 183 for District 8, and further questions the reasonableness of Nelson's projected use rates of almost 236 and 258 in 1990 and 1991, respectively. These use rates have stabilized and shown a marked decrease in their rates of increase due to the development of acceptable alternatives to open heart surgery, and close review of the necessity of this treatment by third party payors. As testified to by Nelson, there is a danger that an excess of open heart surgery programs in an area will exacerbate an already stabilized or flattened use rate, and may cause it to decline. He cited both the Miami and Jacksonville areas as examples of Districts in which there appear to be an excess of programs, with a resulting decline in the District's use rate, and inability of a substantial number of programs to even achieve the requisite level of 200 procedures per year to maintain quality of care. When it comes to open heart surgery programs, more is not necessarily better and may actually result in less, according to Nelson. Even applying Nelson's inflated use rate of 236 per 100,000 population in 1990 to the Venice service area population, the applicant will not achieve its projected number of procedures when the market share of 29% in 1990 predicted by Venice's consultant is considered. Applying its consultant's projected market shares, Venice will realize only 81 procedures in the first year, 98 in year two, and 126 procedures in the third year. Since Venice's pro forma bases its assessment of financial feasibility upon its projections of 125 procedures in year one, and 175 in year two, and since the applicant has not established the reasonableness of these projections, the long- term financial feasibility of this project has not been shown. Further, Venice has also failed to establish that it can reasonably be expected to achieve the level of 200 procedures in its third year, and therefore, it has also failed to show that it can achieve that minimum level which the Department, by Rule, requires to ensure quality of care. In other respects, the assumptions used by Venice in its pro forma are reasonable, including its 2% inflation factor for income, bad debt, payor mix and utilization by class of pay, projected charges, expenses, and depreciation. Effect on Competition and Costs There will not be a significant difference between the charges proposed by Venice and the actual charges at Memorial. The applicant projects that 80% of its open heart surgery will be reimbursed through Medicare, which reimburses on a fixed fee basis to which hospital charges have no direct relevance. Therefore, there would be no appreciable impact on costs in the health care community if this application is approved. As previously discussed, there would be greater competition among existing and approved programs in District 8 for trained open heart surgery and critical care nurses, which are in short supply. While Venice has projected open heart surgery nurses' salaries at a somewhat unrealistically low level, it can reasonably be expected that greater competition for trained personnel who are in short supply will eventually result in higher salaries and health care costs. If this application is approved, the cost to transport patients who require open heart surgery from Venice to another facility would be eliminated. This would mean that patients could avoid a $235 to $250 ambulance charge for transfer to Memorial, a $450 charge for ambulance transport to Tampa General, or a $1,000 to $1,300 helicopter charge for transport to Tampa General Hospital. This savings is not significant when compared to total charges for open heart surgery procedures. Impact on Existing and Approved Programs As discussed above, approval of the Venice application will adversely affect the ability of existing providers to attract and retain trained open heart surgery and critical care RNs due to the already existing shortage of personnel to fill these positions, and the fact that two already approved programs will become operational prior to Venice's program, if it were to be approved. Although Memorial has the capacity to perform 1,000 open heart surgery procedures annually, Venice's expert, Eugene Nelson, projects that if the Venice program is approved, Memorial will experience only a 12% growth between 1988 to 1991, and will only perform 771 cases in 1991. Curiously, he then concludes that this represents no impact on Memorial. The proposed primary service area for the Venice program and Memorial's primary service area completely overlap, and they are, therefore, competing for the same open heart surgery patients. Venice has been referring 85%-87% of its patients who require open heart surgery to Memorial. If Venice had its own open heart surgery program, the need for transfer and referral would be obviated. In the second year of operation, Venice projects on its pro forma that it will perform 175 cases. Using its own projection of 85%, 149 to 150 of these cases would have been transferred to Memorial, but for the Venice program. If the more realistic number of 81 procedures in the second year of operation for the Venice program is used, 69 cases which would have otherwise been transferred to Memorial would stay at Venice. Rick Knapp, who was accepted as an expert in health care finance, provided a reasonable estimate of financial impact upon Memorial, given these projected losses in patient referrals. He concluded that Memorial would experience a net income reduction of approximately $1.4 million if Venice's projection of 175 cases in its second year is correct, and Memorial lost 149 to 150 referrals. Even Michael Rolph, who was called as an expert in health care finance by Venice, testified that Memorial would loose $2 million in net revenue if it lost 100 open heart surgery patients. If the more realistic figure of 81 cases in the second year were used, there would also be a net income loss for Memorial, but more importantly for purposes of this case, it was established through Knapp's testimony that Venice's program would lose $334,000, and not be financially feasible. It is, of course, recognized that Memorial would still experience a growth in its absolute number of open heart procedures due to population increases and increases in the use rate. However, any such increase in the absolute number of procedures performed at Memorial through growth does not obviate the fact that the total number of procedures it would have performed will be significantly reduced by the loss of referrals from Venice, if this application is approved. This is particularly noteworthy given its excess capacity. Memorial's most recent annual gross income was $160 million, with an operating margin (profit) of between $3.5 and $3.9 million. Therefore, losses which would result from the Venice program would not threaten the financial viability of Memorial, but would be significant in terms of its open heart surgery program. Jerry Sommerville, an expert in hospital finance, estimated that 9% of Medical Center's open heart surgery cases would come from the Venice area, which is included in Medical Center's secondary service area. If these cases are lost to Medical Center with the opening of the Venice program, Medical Center's projected 150 cases in 1990 would be reduced by 13.5, and in 1991 its projection of 200 cases would be reduced by 18. These reductions would result in a net revenue loss for Medical Center of $254,000 with a gross marginal loss of $62,800 in 1990, and a net revenue loss of $329,500 with a gross marginal loss of $95,200 in 1991. This represents a significant reduction in income for this open heart surgery program in its first years of operation. Medical Center's most recent annual profit margin was approximately $1 million.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order which: (l) Denies Memorial's Motion for Summary Adjudication; Dismisses Medical Center as a party due to a lack of standing; and Denies Venice's CON Application Number 5715. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH CASE NOS. 89-1412 & 89-1413) Rulings on the Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Findings 6, 17. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Findings 6, 9. Rejected as a conclusion of law. 7-8. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 15; Rejected in Finding 16. Adopted in Finding 17. Rejected in Finding 41, as otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 41, 42. Rejected as irrelevant. 15-18. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 42. 19. Adopted in Finding 43. 20-21. Rejected in Finding 43. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 53. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 55. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 55, 56. Adopted in Finding 57. Rejected in Finding 57. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 57. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings 12, 20 and 39; Rejected in Findings 53, 55 and 56. Adopted in part in Finding 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 44. Adopted in Finding 44. Adopted in Finding 37; Rejected in Findings 38-47. Rejected in Finding 41. Rejected in Finding 25. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 43. Adopted in Finding 34, but otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 35. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 34, 35. 50-54. Adopted in Finding 48. 55-61. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 31. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 35. Adopted in Finding 36; Rejected in Finding 35 and otherwise as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 36; Rejected in Finding 33. Adopted in Finding 35. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Finding 31. Adopted in Finding 6. Rejected as unnecessary. 73-75. Rejected in Finding 27 and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 22. Rejected in Finding 27 and otherwise as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 51. 80-81. Rejected in Findings 28, 29. 82-85. Rejected in Finding 49 and otherwise as irrelevant. 86. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. 87-94. Rejected in Finding 49 and otherwise as irrelevant. 95. Adopted in Finding 22. 96-97. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary, and simply a summation of and argument on the evidence. 98. Adopted in Finding 11; Rejected in Finding 24. Rulings on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 17. 7-9. Adopted in Finding 18. 10. Adopted in Findings 18, 22. 11-12. Adopted in Finding 22. 13-14. Rejected in Finding 20. 15-17. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 18. Adopted in Finding 18. 19. Adopted in Finding 22; Rejected in Finding 20. 20. Adopted in Finding 30. 21. Adopted in part in Finding 13, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 22-23. Adopted in Findings 15, 16. 24. Adopted in Findings 4, 25. 25. Adopted in Findings 25, 39. 26. Adopted in Finding 26. 27-34. Adopted in Finding 27. 35. Adopted in Findings 22, 23 and 24. 36. Adopted in Findings 28, 29. 37. Rejected as unnecessary. 38-43. Adopted in Findings 28, 29. 44. Adopted in Findings 31, 32. 45. Rejected as unnecessary. 46-49. Adopted in Finding 34. 50. Adopted in Finding 24. 51. Adopted in Findings 24, 37. 52-55. Adopted in Finding 38. 56. Adopted in Finding 39. 57-61. Adopted in Finding 40. 62-64. Adopted in Finding 41. 65-66. Adopted in Findings 42, 43. 67. Adopted in Finding 44. 68-69. Adopted in Finding 46. 70. Adopted in Finding 47. 71. Rejected in Finding 48. 72. Adopted in Finding 40. 73. Adopted in Finding 47. 74-75. Adopted in Finding 49. 76. Adopted in Findings 55, 57. 77. Adopted in Findings 50, 52. 78. Adopted in Findings 31, 50 and 52. 79-82. Adopted in Finding 32. 83. Adopted in Findings 33, 50 and 52. 84. Adopted in Finding 33. 85. Adopted in Finding 32. 86-87. Adopted in Findings 33, 50 and 52. 88. Adopted in Findings 28, 29. 89. Adopted in Findings 24 through 27. 90. Adopted in Finding 6. 91-92. Rejected in Finding 7. 93. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 8. 94. Rejected in Finding 14 and otherwise as unnecessary. 95. Adopted in Findings 15, 16. 96. Rejected in Findings 14, 15. 97-99. Adopted and Rejected in Findings 12, 13. 100. Rejected in Finding 9. 101. Adopted in Findings 6, 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore C. Eastmoore, Esquire A. Lamar Matthews, Jr., Esquire P. O. Box 3258 Sarasota, FL 33577 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire The Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Charles A. Stampelos, Esquire P. O. Box 2174 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
