The Issue The issues are whether proposed and existing Florida Administrative Code rules, both numbered 59G-6.030, are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are 120 hospitals--some not-for-profit, some for-profit, and some governmental--that are licensed under chapter 395, Florida Statutes, provide both inpatient and outpatient services, and participate in the Medicaid program. AHCA is the state agency authorized to make payments for services rendered to Medicaid patients. Before 2013, all Medicaid outpatient services were provided and paid fee-for-service. Under the fee-for-service model, hospitals submit claims to AHCA, and AHCA reimburses the hospitals based on the established rate. For many years, AHCA has set prospective Medicaid fee- for-service reimbursement rates for outpatient hospital services, either semi-annually or annually, based on the most recent complete and accurate cost reports submitted by each hospital; has re-published the Florida Title XIX Hospital Outpatient Reimbursement Plan (Outpatient Plan) that explained how the rates were determined; and has adopted the current Outpatient Plan by reference in rule 59G-6.030. In 2005, the Florida Legislature’s General Appropriations Act (GAA) stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services reflected a cost savings of $16,796,807 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement methodology for outpatient hospital rates.” It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan that may include, but is not limited to, the inflation factor, variable cost target, county rate ceiling or county ceiling target rate to achieve the cost savings.” AHCA responded by amending the Outpatient Plan to provide: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The amended Outpatient Plan was then adopted by reference in rule 59G-6.030, effective July 1, 2005. AHCA collaborated with the hospitals to determine how to accomplish the legislatively mandated reduction in a manner that would be fair to all the hospitals. It was decided to take the hospitals’ unaudited cost reports from the most recent complete fiscal year and the number of Medicaid occasions of service from the monthly report of AHCA’s Medicaid fiscal agent that corresponded to the hospitals’ fiscal years, and use an Excel spreadsheet program with a function called Goal Seek to calculate proportionate rate adjustments for each hospital to achieve the legislatively mandated aggregate savings. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2005. In 2006, there was no further Medicaid Trend Adjustment (MTA) reduction. However, in accordance with the instructions in the 2005 GAA, the 2005 MTA reduction of $16,796,807 was treated as a recurring reduction and was applied again in the 2006 Outpatient Plan, which again stated: “Effective July 1, 2005, a recurring rate reduction shall be established until an aggregate total estimated savings of $16,796,807 is achieved each year. This reduction is the Medicaid Trend Adjustment.” The 2006 Outpatient Plan also stated: “This recurring reduction, called the Medicaid Trend Adjustment, shall be applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It also came to be known as the first cut or cut 1. It again was applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The cut 1 rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2006. In 2007, the GAA stated that the funds appropriated for Medicaid outpatient hospital services were reduced by $17,211,796 “as a result of modifying the reimbursement for outpatient hospital rates, effective July 1, 2008.” This has been referred to as the second cut or cut 2. It instructed AHCA to “implement a recurring methodology in the Title XIX Outpatient Hospital Reimbursement Plan to achieve this reduction.” The 2008 Outpatient Plan again applied the first cut as a recurring reduction and stated that it was to be “applied proportionally to all rates on an annual basis.” It then made the second cut, which was to be “applied to achieve a recurring annual reduction of $17,211,796.” These cuts were again applied by taking the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports and the corresponding occasions of service from the appropriate monthly report of the fiscal agent, and using the Excel spreadsheets and the Goal Seek function to calculate rate adjustments for each hospital. The resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospital reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2008. This process was repeated in subsequent years. The third cut (cut 3) was in 2008; it was a $36,403,451 reduction. The fourth cut (cut 4) was in 2009, during a special session; it was a $19,384,437 reduction; however, per the GAA that made the fourth cut, it was not applied to the rates of certain children’s specialty hospitals, which were excluded from the reduction. In addition, using language similar to what AHCA had been using in the Outpatient Plans, the 2009 GAA stated: “The agency shall reduce individual hospital rates proportionately until the required savings are achieved.” The Legislature enacted cut 5 and cut 6 in 2009 and 2010. However, the GAAs stated that AHCA should not take these cuts if the unit costs before the cuts were equal to or less than the unit costs used in establishing the budget. AHCA determined that cuts 5 and 6 should not be taken. However, cuts 1 through 4 continued to be applied as recurring reductions, and rates were adjusted for cuts 1 through 4 in 2009 and 2010 in the same manner as before. In 2011, the GAA enacted cut 7; it was for $99,045,233 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In setting the individual hospitals’ reimbursement rates, AHCA first applied cut 7 in the same manner as cuts 1 through 4. The result was a 16.5 percent rate adjustment for cut 7, which was much higher than for previous cuts. Some of the hospitals pointed this out to AHCA and to the Legislature and its staff. There was lots of discussion, and it was determined that the rate adjustment from cut 7 would be more like what the Legislature was expecting (about 12 percent), if budgeted occasions of service were used, instead of the number from the fiscal agent’s monthly report that corresponded to the most recent cost reports. AHCA agreed to change to budgeted fee-for- service occasions of service for cut 7, with the concurrence of the hospitals and the Legislature and its staff. The year 2011 was also the year the Legislature instituted what became known as the “unit cost cap.” In that year, the Legislature amended section 409.908, Florida Statutes, to provide: “The agency shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs effective July 1, 2011. Reimbursement rates shall be as provided in the General Appropriations Act.” § 409.908(23)(a), Fla. Stat. (2011). This part of the statute has not changed. The GAA that year elaborated: In establishing rates through the normal process, prior to including this reduction [cut 7], if the unit cost is equal to or less than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then no additional reduction in rates is necessary. In establishing rates through the normal process, if the unit cost is greater than the unit cost used in establishing the budget, then rates shall be reduced by an amount required to achieve this reduction, but shall not be reduced below the unit cost used in establishing the budget. “Unit cost” was not defined by statute or GAA. To calculate what it was in 2011, AHCA divided the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals. The result was $141.51. Since 2011, AHCA has applied the unit cost cap with reference to the 2011 unit cost of $141.51. Since then, AHCA has compared the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, except in children’s and rural hospitals, to determine whether the unit cost cap would require a further rate reduction, after applying the MTA cuts. Using this comparison, the unit cost cap never has been exceeded, and no further rate adjustments ever have been required. It is not clear why AHCA excluded Medicaid occasions of service for children’s and rural hospitals from the unit cost calculations made after 2011. It could have been because those hospitals were excluded from cut 7 and cut 8. Cut 8 was enacted in 2012; it was for $49,078,485 and was added to the previous cuts for all but certain children’s specialty and rural hospitals, which were excluded from the additional reduction. In 2012, the Legislature specified in the GAA that budgeted occasions of service should be used in calculating the MTA reduction for inpatient hospitals. AHCA always treated inpatient and outpatient MTAs the same, and it viewed the specific legislative direction for the inpatient MTA as guidance and indicative of legislative intent that it should continue to use budgeted occasions of service for the outpatient cut 7 and should also use them for the outpatient cut 8. Again, the hospitals did not object since the result was a higher reimbursement rate. In 2014, the Florida Medicaid program began to transition Medicaid recipients from a fee-for-service model to a managed care model. Under the managed care model, AHCA pays a managed care organization (MCO) a capitation rate per patient. The MCOs negotiate contracts with hospitals to provide outpatient care at an agreed reimbursement rate per occasion of service. Since August 2014, the majority of Medicaid recipients has been receiving services through MCOs, rather than through fee-for-service. Currently, about 75 to 80 percent of Medicaid outpatient hospital occasions of service are provided through managed care In recognition of the shift to MCOs, the Legislature began to divide the Medicaid outpatient hospital reimbursement appropriation in the GAA between what AHCA reimburses directly to hospitals under the fee-for-service model and what it pays MCOs to provide those services under the MCO delivery system. This allocation of the budgets between fee-for-service and managed care necessarily accomplished a corresponding division of the recurring MTA reductions between the two delivery systems. The Legislature did not enact any statutes or GAAs requiring AHCA to change how it applies MTA reductions to determine fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments, or make any other changes in response to the transition to MCOs. There were no additional MTA reductions in 2015. The 2015 Outpatient Plan, which is incorporated in existing rule 59G- 6.030, applied the previous cuts as recurring reductions. The evidence was confusing as to whether cuts 7 and 8 were applied using the occasions of service in the fiscal agent’s monthly report corresponding to the hospitals’ most current unaudited cost reports, or using budgeted occasions of service. If the former, the numbers did not yet reflect much of the shift to the managed care model because of a time lag in producing cost reports, and the evidence suggested that the numbers were approximately the same as the budgeted occasions of service used previously. Whichever numbers were used, the resulting rate adjustments were incorporated in the hospitals’ reimbursement rates, effective July 1, 2015. Leading up to the 2016 legislative session, there was a legislative proposal to determine prospective Medicaid outpatient reimbursement rates using a completely new method called Enhanced Ambulatory Patient Groups (EAPGs). EAPGs would eliminate the need to depend on hospital cost reports and complicated calculations to determine the effects of MTA reductions on prospective hospital outpatient reimbursement rates, effective July 1, following the end of the legislative session each year. Hospitals, including some if not all of the Petitioners, asked the Legislature not to proceed with the proposed EAPG legislation until they had an opportunity to study it and provide input, and EAPGs were not enacted in 2016. However, section 409.905(6)(b) was amended, effective July 1, 2017, to require the switch to EAPGs. See note to § 409.905, Fla. Stat.; and ch. 2016-65, § 9, Laws of Fla. (2016). When it became apparent that EAPGs would not be in use for prospective reimbursement rates for fiscal year 2016/2017, AHCA basically repeated the 2015/2016 process, but adjusted the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8 by adding 14,000 occasions of service. At the end of July, AHCA published new rates effective July 1, 2016. When the new rates were published, they were challenged by some of the Petitioners under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Citing section 409.908(1)(f)1., AHCA took the position that there was no jurisdiction and dismissed the petitions. That decision is on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. The Petitioners also challenged the methodology used to calculate the new prospective reimbursement rates as a rule that was not adopted as required, and challenged the validity of existing rule 59G-6.030, which incorporated the 2015 Outpatient Plan by reference. These challenges became DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX. In response to DOAH cases 16-6398RX through 16-6414RX, AHCA adopted the 2016 Outpatient Plan by reference in proposed rule 59G-6.030. The 2016 Outpatient Plan provides more detail than the 2015 version. AHCA’s position is that the additional detail was provided to clarify the 2015 version. However, it changed the occasions of service used for calculating the hospitals’ rate reductions for cuts 7 and 8, as indicated in Finding 22, as well as some other substantive changes. The 2015 Outpatient Plan addressed the unit cost cap by stating: “Effective July 1, 2011, AHCA shall establish rates at a level that ensures no increase in statewide expenditures resulting from a change in unit costs.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan elaborates and specifies the calculation AHCA has been using, as stated in Finding 14. The 2015 Outpatient Plan provided that an individual hospital’s prospective reimbursement rate may be adjusted under certain circumstances, such as when AHCA makes an error in the calculation of the hospital’s unaudited rate. It also stated: “Any rate adjustment or denial of a rate adjustment by AHCA may be appealed by the provider in accordance with Rule 28-106, F.A.C., and section 120.57(1), F.S.” The 2016 Outpatient Plan deleted the appeal rights language from the existing rule. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on managed care contract rates is debatable. Those rates do not have to be the same as the fee- for-service outpatient reimbursement rates, although they are influenced by the fee-for-service rates, and it is not uncommon for them to be stated as a percentage of the fee-for-service rates. By law, managed care contract rates cannot exceed 120 percent of the fee-for-service rates unless the MCO gets permission from AHCA, as provided in section 409.975(6). Currently, rates paid by MCOs for Medicaid hospital outpatient services average about 105 percent of the fee-for-service reimbursement rates. AHCA has indicated that it would not expect or like to see the contract rates much higher than that. It is not clear whether that still is AHCA’s position. If higher rates were negotiated, the impact of fee-for-services rate adjustments on managed care rates could be reduced or even eliminated. The effect of the existing and proposed rules on the Petitioners through their effect on how fee-for-service reimbursement rates are calculated is not disputed. With the transition to managed care, the effect is greater and clearly substantial. The recurring MTA reductions enacted by the Legislature through 2014, which total $224,015,229 (after taking into account $10,656,238 that was reinstated, and $4,068,064 that was added in consideration of trauma centers), are being spread over fewer fee-for-service occasions of service, especially for cuts 7 and 8, which significantly lowers the fee-for-service outpatient reimbursement rates calculated under the proposed rule. The Petitioners’ objections to the validity of the proposed and existing rules can be summarized as follows: a lack of legislative authority for recurring (i.e., cumulative) MTA reductions; a failure to adopt a fixed methodology to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from MTA reductions; specifically, a failure to derive the number of fee-for-service occasions of service used in calculating individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments in the same manner every year; conversely, a failure to increase the occasions of service used to calculate individual hospital outpatient reimbursement rate adjustments resulting from cuts 1 through 4; a failure of the unit cost cap in the existing rule to specify how it is applied; a failure of the unit cost cap in the proposed rule to compare the 2011 unit cost to the current cost, calculated by dividing the total dollar amount of Medicaid payments made to all hospitals by AHCA by the number of Medicaid occasions of service for all hospitals, including in children’s and rural hospitals; and proposed rule’s deletion of the language in the existing rule stating that a rate adjustment or denial can be appealed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106 and section 120.57.
The Issue Whether under Section 381.494(6)(c)-(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent, Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is entitled to a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing a proposed 75-bed satellite hospital in Port Salerno, Martin County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent, Martin Memorial Hospital Association, Inc. ("Martin Memorial"), seeks a CON to construct and operate a 75- bed satellite hospital in Port Salerno, Florida. Of the proposed 75 acute-care beds, 50 will be new and 25 will be transferred from Mar in Memorial's existing hospital in Stuart, Florida. The proposed satellite hospital will have six intensive care beds, 69 medical-surgical beds, and two operating rooms. Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS"), preliminarily issued the applied-for CON. After Petitioner, Palm Beach-Martin County Medical Center ("PBMC"), owner of nearby Jupiter Hospital in northern Palm Beach County, requested a Section 120.57 hearing to contest issuance of the CON, DHRS forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer. This case, in its earlier stages, was a consolidated proceeding with numerous parties and party-applicants. In the fall of 1984, several parties withdrew or were dismissed. One of the them, American Healthcorp., dismissed its challenge of DHRS' denial of its application to construct a 120-bed new hospital in Vero Beach, Florida. Prior to that dismissal, American Healthcorp. had filed a mandamus action in Leon County Circuit Court to require DHRS to issue a CON. The writ of mandamus was issued and that order was appealed by DHRS to the First District Court of Appeal. On June 18, 1985, the First District reversed the Circuit Court's order. DHRS never issued a CON to American Healthcorp., as the writ of mandamus was stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Initially, PBMC, another party-applicant, contested DHRS' denial of a proposed 66-bed addition to its existing hospital in Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. Later, PBMC dropped its opposition to the denial after concluding that, due to a dramatic drop in patient census during 1984, additional beds in the area were not needed.1 On Martin Memorial's unopposed motion to dismiss, PBMC was dismissed as a party. Other nonapplicant intervenors subsequently withdrew. In the earlier consolidated proceeding, Martin Memorial had contested the denial of its initial application (filed in 1983) for a CON to construct a 150-bed satellite hospital in Port Salerno, on the same site as now proposed for the 75-bed hospital. In October, 1984, Martin Memorial revised its application, within a deadline for submittal of amended applications set by prehearing order. This revised application, now the subject of this proceeding, reduced the number of beds in the proposed hospital from 150 to 75: 50 were to be new and 25 were to be transferred from Martin Memorial's existing hospital in Stuart.2 This 75-bed application was then preliminarily approved by DHRS, as part of an effort to settle the pending consolidated proceeding. After notice of the approval was published on December 7, 1984 in the Florida Administrative Weekly, PBMC timely requested a hearing to contest it. PBMC's position is, generally, that another hospital in the area is not needed and will result in an unnecessary duplication of services and that, if built, the hospital would draw patients who would otherwise use Jupiter Hospital, to the economic injury of PBMC. The remaining party-applicant in the consolidated proceeding was Lawnwood Medical Center, whose proposed 50- bedexpansion of its hospital in Fort Pierce (St. Lucie County), was preliminarily approved by DHRS. Martin Memorial requested a Section 120.57(1) hearing to contest the approval. By stipulation dated May 15, 1985, Lawnwood Medical Center was dismissed as a party. Martin Memorial II. The Parties The applicant, Martin Memorial, operates a not-for- profit community hospital in Stuart, Florida, which has served the health care needs of the area since 1939. At that time, it had 25 beds and the site consisted o eight acres. In subsequent years, Martin Memorial added five additional acres of land, and the hospital now has 336 beds, including 26 new beds: nearing completion. Martin Memorial is a subsidiary of Coastal Health Corporation, a not-for-profit holding company. One of the holding company's other non-profit subsidiaries, Coastal Care Corporation, provides services such as ambulatory surgery and primary or emergency care at medical treatment centers. Martin Memorial and its parent corporation, Coastal Health Corporation, are governed by boards comprised of full- time residents of Martin County who serve without compensation. Martin Memorial Hospital has a proven record of providing health care to indigents. Its policy is to provide health services without regard to race, religion, national origin, or a patient's ability to pay. It has always participated in the Medicare/Medicaid Programs and participates in the county indigent program. It proposes to follow the same policy at the proposed satellite hospital. Martin Memorial Hospital, in Stuart, is adjacent to the St. Lucie River on the north, bounded by the Heida-Brad Park residential development on the east, by the St. Mary's Episcopal Church on the south, and by various businesses and residences on the west. It would be difficult for Martin Memorial Hospital to expand to meet anticipated future demand. It has found it impractical to buy additional land adjacent to its existing facility. (It does not nave eminent domain power.) Under current zoning, its height is limited to the existing six floors. Other obstacles include problems with parking access and compliance with fire safety codes. Palm Beach-Martin (PBMC) PBMC is a non-profit corporation, organized in 1973, with the stated purpose of serving tee health care needs of residents of northern Palm Beach County and southern Martin County. It operates a community not-for-profit hospital, known as Jupiter Hospital, in Jupiter, Florida. A 156-bed acute care hospital, it is the northern most hospital in Palm Beach County and provides health care services to the residents of northern Palm Beach and southern Martin Counties. Over 10% of Jupiter Hospital's patients come from the Hobe Sound area of Martin County, and another 20% come from the Tequesta area of Martin County. The boards which operate PBMC and Jupiter Hospital are made up of volunteers; one-half of whom are doctors on the hospital's medical staff, and the other half are lay-members from the community. All policy decisions are made by the boards. The hospital is managed, under contract, by hospital Corporation of America Management Company (owned by Hospital Corporation of America) which supplies only the hospital administrator and finance director, all other personnel are employees of PBMC. Like Martin Memorial, PBMC has a practice of providing health care to indigent patients. It has a Medicaid contract at its convalescent pavilion and treats Medicaid patients requiring care. (Since it has not had a Medicaid contract with the state, PBMC "writes-off" the cost of care provided to Medicaid and indigent patients. But due to an increasing number of Medicaid patients, PBMC has applied for a Medicaid contract.) It has a current contract with Palm Beach County to treat indigents in its out-patient facility. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) DHRS is designated by statute as the single state agency charged with issuing and denying CONs in accordance with district plans, DHRS rules, and state and federal statutes. See, Section 381.494, Florida Statutes (1983). Geographic Facts The proposed satellite hospital would be located in Port Salerno, Martin County, 5 1/2 miles south of Martin Memorial Hospital and 15 miles north of Jupiter Hospital. The site of the proposes hospital is 35 acres in size, and is located approximately 1/4 mile east of Highway U.S. 1, on Port Salerno Road. Jonathan Dickinson State Park, abutting Highway U.S. 1 for five miles, is situated between the site of the proposed satellite hospital and PBMC's Jupiter Hospital. The area of Hobe Sound is just north of this State Park. The proposed hospital would be adjacent to the Martin County Campus of Indian River Community College. III. Standing of PBMC: Expected Impact of Proposed Hospital on PBMC. Since it is physicians who admit patients to hospitals, the extent to which medical staffs overlap is one factor used to project how a new hospital will affect an existing one. Martin Memorial Hospital and Jupiter Hospital have distinct medical staffs and there is no material overlap. Neither has it been shown that Jupiter Hospital physicians will seek staff privileges at the proposed satellite hospital. It is reasonably expected that the proposed hospital will be staffed, for the most part, by physicians who are also on the staff of Martin Memorial Hospital. Nevertheless, the proposed satellite hospital would draw away a substantial portion of Jupiter Hospital's patient base and is intended to reduce Jupiter Hospital's market share in the Hobe Sound area to near zero. (Indeed, this is a result projected in Martin Memorial's Long Range Plan.) Martin Memorial (in its Long Range Plan) estimates Jupiter Hospital's current market share to be 65%. Jupiter Hospital's primary service area includes Hobe Sound, from which it draws approximately 10% of its patients. The northern boundary of the Hobe Sound area is 20 minutes driving time from Jupiter Hospital. Hobe Sound is also within the primary service area of the proposed satellite hospital. The proposed hospital would be in the same DHRS Service District as Jupiter Hospital and both hospitals would have overlapping primary service areas. The projected loss of 10% of its patient base to the proposed satellite hospital would have a significant adverse financial impact on PBMC. It has not been shown, however, this impact would imperil the continued financial feasibility of Jupiter Hospital. IV. Numerical Bed-need Projected by Applying DHRS Rule-Based Bed-need Methodology. The proposed satellite hospital would be located in DHRS Health District 9, which consists of Indian River, St. Lucie, 55artin, Okeechobee, and Palm Beach Counties. The state acute care bed-need methodology is a complex formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code. It projects bed-need, on a district-wide basis, five years into the future, creating what is referred to as a "five-year planning horizon" for assessing acute care bed-need. The formula requires several district-specific inputs, including population forecasts in four age groups, the average fertility rate in the district for the three most recent years, the average historical utilization rate in the district for the three most recent years, together with specific factors used to determine the net flow of elderly patients. Three other input factors are applied uniformly to all districts: discharge rates by service and by age cohort for Florida residents, average length of stay by service and by age cohort, and occupancy standards by service and by age cohort. Application of the formula entails seven steps: Project patient days by service and by age cohort using the formula: Patient days = projected population x discharge rate x average length of stay Adjust the projected patient days for the 65 and over age cohort to account for patient flows. Calculate bed-need by applying service- specific occupancy standards to projected patient days. Calculate the district bed allocation by summing the beds needed by service. Calculate the projected occupancy of these beds using the district's historical utilization rate. If the projected occupancy. rate is less than 75 percent or greater than 90 percent, apply specified formulas to adjust the district bed allocation (downward or upward, respectively. Check to ensure that each district will be able to meet peak demand based on the adjusted allocation. (R-l8l/, Testimony of Kolb) Population projections used in the methodology are: "for age- specific cohorts residing in the relevant district projected five years into the future," Rule 10-5.11(23)(f)1., Florida Administrative Code. These age-specific cohort projections (of county populations) must be "those developed by the State Health Planning Agency, and will be based on the latest mid-range projections published by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida [BEBR]." Id. There are currently 4,695 licensed or approved acute care beds in District 9, which includes the 50 additional beds (preliminarily) approved for the proposed satellite hospital and the 45 beds approved in a subsequent batching cycle. For July, 1989, application of the bed-need methodology shows a district wide gross need of 4,621 beds. This is based on population forecasts for July, 1939, released by the Governor's Budgeting and Planning Office on- January 1, 1985.This office interpolates and publishes population forecasts based on figures received from BEBR. Since later 1934 (when Rule 27E-2.01-.04 was adopted requiring state agencies to use, in their planning, population projections provided by the Governor's Office), DHRS's Office of Health Planning and Development has used such forecasts to project bed-need under the methodology. These forecasts are appropriate for such use since they are "developed" by the State Health Planning Agency and based on the latest mid-range projections published by BEBR. When the licensed or approved bed total of 4,645 (excluding 50 beds for the proposed satellite hospital) are subtracted from the district wide gross need, there is a net surplus of 24 beds. If the 50 beds of the proposed satellite hospital are included, the net surplus increases to 74 beds. A planning horizon of January, 1990, however, is more appropriate. It more closely conforms to the methodology's requirement that need be projected five years into the future. (At hearing, all parties agreed or acquiesced to the proposition that the five year planning horizon should begin to run, to the extent possible, from the date of final hearing in June, 1985.) The latest county-wide projections released by the Governor's Office for state agency use, projects population by age and sex cohorts for January 1, 1990 and July 1, 1990. The July 1, 1990 projections are beyond the five year horizon and so less suitable for use in the methodology. Applying, then, the bed-need methodology to project bed-need for January, 1990, shows a gross need of 4,702 beds, resulting in a total district wide net need of 57 beds (excluding the proposed 50-beds satellite hospital). Hence the methodology shows (just barely) a January, 1990 need for the 50- beds sought for the proposed satellite hospital. Because of projected increases in district population, the methodology predicts a significant growth in bed-need between July, 1989 and January, 1990: bed-need grows by 81 beds or by more than 10 beds per month. PBMC contends that a planning horizon of July 1, 1989, and no later, must be used since DHRS has, historically, updated bed-need projections only on July 1 of each year. Annual updates were limited to once a year because updated population figures were received only in July. Now, however, -he situation has greatly improved. DHRS receives updated population forecasts from the Governor's Office twice a year--in January and July. There is no reason why these updated and, presumably, more accurate population forecasts cannot be used to project bed-need Martin Memorial, on the other hand, argues for a more distant planning horizon--April 1, 1990. This horizon, however, requires use of BEBR projections recently received but not yet released or interpolated by the Governor's Office, until released, such projections are not appropriate for use by state agencies. See, Rule 27E-2.01-2.04, Fla. Admin. Code. V. Consideration of Other CON Review Criteria [A CON may be denied even though the bed- need methodology projects a need for the proposed beds five years into the future. Rule 10-5.11(23)(b): "An unfavorable Certif- icate of Need determination may be made when a calculated bed-need exists, but other criteria specified in Chapter 3Bl.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not met." DHRS must consider CON applications in light of all statutory and rule criteria. See, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Johnson & Johnson, 447 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).] Subdistrict Need: Allocation of District Wide Bed-need to|-. Relevant Subdistrict In 1983, the Local Health Council divided District9 into five subdistricts: (1) Indian River County, (2) Martin and St. Lucie Counties, (3) Okeechobee County, (4) northern Palm Beach County, and (5) southern Palm Beach County. Each subdistrict "is an area where the co-unity, by itself, uses the facilities in an area. It is supposed to be a sort of natural boundary that separates the different communities." (TR-413) The council also adopted a methodology for allocating acute care beds among the five component subdistricts. (R.-19) Although DHRS has not yet adopted, by rule, District9's subdistricts and subdistrict bed-need allocation methodology, both are part of District 9's Local Health Plan, adopted after a series of workshops and public hearings. The subdistricts were identified pursuant to a protocol furnished by DHRS which required consideration of whether an area was urban or rural, or comprised a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA). Under the protocol, an SMSA must be designated a separate subdistrict. Since Martin and St. Lucie Counties form a SMSA, they form a separate subdistrict. The five subdistricts of District 9 were identified in a rational manner, have a factual basis, and are useful tools for health care planning purposes. The methodology for allocating district wide bed-need to the subdistricts, also part of the Local Health Plan, has also been shown to be supported by reason and accepted health care planning concepts. DHRS cannot rationally determine the need for additional acute care beds, at least in =he context of this case without looking at subdistrict need or lack of need. In this way, local needs and conditions are considered in the decision- making process. District 9 is too large to serve as a useful unit for acute care bed planning purposes. Applying the Local Health Plan's sur5istrict bed-need allocation methodology to the July, 1989 planning horizon, indicates a net acute care bed-need for the Martin/St. Lucie-- County Subdistrict (not counting the 50 beds at issue) of 103beds. If the proposed hospital were approved, the subdistrict bed-need methodology would show a remaining subdistrict need for53 acute care beds. (R-18, TR-249) When applied to the January, 1990 planning horizon, preferred to the July, 1999 horizon., the subdistrict methodology shows a net acute care bed-need of 119 beds for the Martin/St. Lucie County Subdistrict (not counting the 50 beds at issue). Thus, the bed-need allocation methodology contained in District 9's Local Health Plan, shows a need for the proposed 50-acute care beds, with a 69-bed margin. (T-18, TR-248) Since the total number of licensed and approved beds (excluding the 50-beds at issue) for the subdistrict is 761, the projected need for 119 new acute care beds in January, 1990, is considered to be substantial. But the subdistrict bed allocation methodology assumes, incorrectly, that patients do not "cross-over" from one subdistrict to another. It fails, therefore, to consider or take to account the significant number of patients residing in the Martin/St. Lucie Counties Subdistrict who use acute care beds at Jupiter Hospital, located in the subdistrict to the south. This failure in the subdistrict methodology detracts from the weight to be given the resulting bed-need calculation. Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Facilities. Section 384.494(6) (c) 2.; Florida Statutes, requires review of CON applications in context with the "availability . . . accessibility and adequacy of like and existing health care services . . . in the district of the applicant."] Excess or under-utilized acute care bed capacity is a problem because it contributes to higher health costs. There are fixed overhead costs associated with acute care beds, whether empty or filled by a patient. These costs must ultimately be borne by the patients, or their insurers In reviewing a CON application, DHRS considers the number of available unoccupied beds at the facility and in the county or subdistrict for the most recent calendar year, determines actual occupancy rates, and compares them against an 80% occupancy standard, a standard generally accepted by health care planners. For example, one stated reason for DHRS' denial of Martin Memorial's initial 150-bed application was the availability of 20 unoccupied medical-surgical beds at Martin Memorial in 1982, on an average daily basis. Similarly, the average daily availability of 73 unoccupied medical-surgical beds in the five hospitals within PBMC's service area, plus additional approved but not licensed beds in the area, were stated reasons for DHRS' denial of PBMC's initial 1983 application for additional beds. (R-13) Applying the 80% occupancy standard to 1984 bed utilization statistics in the Martin/St. Lucie County Subdistrict, there were 111 unoccupied acute care beds on an average daily basis, not counting the 50 new beds recently approved for Lawnwood Hospital and the 26 new beds soon to be available at Martin Memorial. This is a 63.7% occupancy rate. Moreover, there were 47 unoccupied licensed beds on an average daily basis at Martin Memorial Hospital (not counting the 26 new beds under construction). The same calculation using only medical-surgical beds shows that in 1984, on an average daily basis, Martin Memorial had 36 unoccupied medical-surgical beds or an occupancy rate of 661. At Jupiter Hospital and Port St. Lucie Medical Center, the two hospitals having overlapping service areas with Martin Memorial, there were 31 (58.2% occupancy rate) and 49 (43.7% occupancy rate) unoccupied medical-surgical beds, respectively, on an average daily basis. (HRS-4) There is an ample supply of available beds: there is not a shortage of acute care hospital beds at Martin Memorial Hospital or in the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict. Martin Memorial has shown only that there may be, or could be, bed availability problems during certain peak months at Memorial Hospital in 1990, based on seasonal considerations. At most, it has shown that, without the proposed satellite hospital, the average occupancy for its highest occupancy month in 1990 would reach 91%. (TR-263-265) However, it is possible to operate a hospital at such an occupancy level for several months and yet maintain an acceptable level of service. (Moreover, Martin Memorial's analysis fails to take into account acute care beds which would be available in 1990 at Port St. Lucie Medical Center and Jupiter Hospital, where occupancy rates would be much lower.) Martin Memorial does not assert that in 1990 its average daily occupancy rate will exceed 80%. Indeed, assuming the validity of its average length of stay and hospital utilization assumptions (which are questionable), Martin Memorial forecasts an average daily occupancy rate of 79.4%. The State Health Plan states that "the issue of surplus beds is expected to be an even greater problem in the future because of the growth of alternative delivery systems"-- (R-20, p.22)--a proposition with which Martin Memorial's expert generally agrees. (TR-287-288) The State Health Plan concludes that "the combined effect of ambulatory surgery, HMOs, DRGs, and other innovations could reduce acute care bed-need by 15% or more." Id. Thus it becomes more likely that there will be an ample supply of available unoccupied beds in the subdistrict through 1990. The proposed satellite hospital would improve or enhance the accessibility of hospital services, since it would be located closer to some patients than either Martin Memorial or Jupiter Hospital. However, it has not been shown that geographic accessibility has been or will be a serious problem without construction of the proposed satellite hospital. The proposed hospital would be located about 5 miles from Martin Memorial and about 15 1/2 miles from Jupiter Hospital. Patients in the southern part of Martin County, residing south of the northern part of Hobe Sound, can be driven to Jupiter Hospital in 20 minutes or less. The definitive standard, commonly used by DHRS and.generally accepted by health care planners to detect geographical bed-access problems, is the 30 minute drive-time standard. Under this standard, if acute care hospital beds are available and accessible, within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average traffic conditions to at least 90% of the population, there is no cause for concern about geographic accessibility. It is undisputed that hospital beds are now available well within 30 minutes travel time to all residents of Martin County during all relevant periods, and will continue to be so through 1990. In short, geographic accessibility is not a current or projected problem and although the satellite hospital would make in-patient services more geographically accessible to some residents, such a result could be expected whenever a new hospital is constructed, whatever its location. As to adequacy of existing and licensed and approved facilities, there is no showing that the quality or extent of health care provided is inadequate. Extent of Utilization of Like and Existing Facilities. [Under Section 3Bl.494(6)(c)2., Florida Statutes, CON applications must also be reviewed in context with the "extent of utilization . . . of like and existing health care services . . . in the service district of the applicant."] During the last two years, the health care industry has undergone major changes resulting in a sudden and dramatic decline in the use of hospital in-patient services. The main cause of this decline was the shift, in October 1983, to the Medicare prospective payment system, otherwise known as Diagnostic Related Groupings (DRGs). The DRG payment system changed Medicare reimbursement from a cost basis to a set reimbursement based on diagnosis. It has caused a sharp decline in the average length of stay of Medicare patients as well as a decrease in Medicare admissions, and a resulting decline in hospital occupancy levels. For example, in calendar year 1984, the average length of stay for hospital patients in District 9 dropped from approximately 6.8 to 6.1. (DHRS-4) Another recent development contributing to the general decline in hospital utilization .is the increasing emphasis on providing out-patient services such as out-patient surgery and home health services. In many areas of the country, the advent of Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) have significantly impacted hospital occupancy rates, not only by encouraging shorter lengths of stay, but also by greatly lowering admission rates. (TR-604-05, 773: P-3, p.l8) According to the State Health Plan, "the emergence of [these] alternative delivery systems . . . [has] exacerbated declining occupancy rates." (R-20, Vol. 1, p.26) Martin Memorial has developed free-standing medical treatment centers in Hobe Sound and Port St. Lucie, which can provide up to 80% of the services required by patients in hospital emergency rooms. (TR-56-59 R-1, Vol. II at 73) In addition, Martin Memorial is merging with VNA in Martin County to provide home health care. These alternative delivery systems, along with the expected increasing effects of PPOs, HMOs and prospective payment systems, will contribute to further declines in hospital utilization and tend to extend the time during which the existing inventory of acute care beds will be adequate to meet the needs of a growing population. Although witnesses for Martin Memorial suggest that this steady decline in bed utilization at Martin Memorial will soon bottom out and that the average length of stay will fall no further, the weight of credible evidence shows that hospital utilization in District 9, as well as in the country as a whole, is still declining and that no one can say, with any reasonable degree of certainty, just when the decline (or "nose dive," TR- 682) in average length of stay and overall utilization will stop. The Executive Director of the District 9 Health Council predicts that the average length of stay in the district may fall from its current level of 6.1 or 6.2 to 5, and a recent survey of southeastern hospitals predicts at least a 5% further decline in average length of stay from 1984 levels. Hospital admission or discharge rates in District 9 fell slightly in 1984, but on the whole have remained relatively constant. The decline in hospital utilization has been chiefly caused by the unprecedented drop in average length of stay. Several factors causing declines in hospital admissions as well as utilization in other areas of the state and country have not yet begun to significantly affect northern Palm Beach, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties. It is, however, reasonably expected that these factors, such as out-patient or ambulatory surgical centers, and home health services (which are becoming increasingly used), will continue to grow and further decrease hospital in-patient surgery and care, admissions, and utilization. (TR-39-40, 578) As stated earlier, the most recent State Health Plan predicts that the combined effect of ambulatory surgery and other alternative health care delivery systems will be to reduce hospital discharges (or admissions) by 15% or more by 1989. (R-20, Vol. 2, p.72) Another factor which will contribute to the further decline in hospital utilization in Florida will be the required adoption of prospective payment programs by hospitals and private insurers for non-;5edicare patients. Under the Florida Health Care Access Act of 1984, hospitals are required to negotiate a prospective payment arrangement with each health insurer representing 10% or more of the hospital's private pay patients (R-20, Vol. 1, p. ll) To date, the only active HMOs in District 9 are found in southern Palm Beach County and their impact has not been felt elsewhere in the district. It is reasonably anticipated, however, that HMOs will expand throughout the district in the next several years and will contribute to a further decline in admissions. (Some commentators predict HMOs will reduce hospital admission rates by as much as 40%.) (TR-605-06, 679-80) Even without these factors, the extent of the decline in hospital utilization in District 9 has been dramatic. Overall hospital utilization i., 1984 declined from a level of 73.7% in 1983 to 65.R% in 1984. (HRS-4; R-~9: P-5) The District 9 medical-surgical utilization rate dropped from 76.3% in 1983 to 67.3% in 1984. The decline in hospital utilization in the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict and at specific hospitals in the area have been even more pronounced: 1983-84 Subdistrict and Specific Hospital Utilization Rates Overall Rate Med-Surg Rate 1983 1984 1983 1984 Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict 76.9%1 63.7% 78% 63.8% Martin Memorial 74.1% 65.1%4 74.8% 66.0% Port St. Lucie5 38.9% 44.1% 37.6% 43.7% Jupiter Hospital 67.7% 55.7% 71.4% 58.2% Although experts disagree on how long the decline in hospital utilization will continue and how far it will fall, it is apparent that hospital utilization is continuing to decline in District 9 in 1985. By January and February 1985, the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict medical-surgical utilization declined about 1% from the same period in 1984. However, the most recent data for March, 1985, shows a decline in monthly medical-surgical utilization from 73.2% in 1984 to 68.8%. Martin Memorial's patient days in 198; are less than the corresponding number of patient days .when compared to the same periods in 1984. In addition, in no single month during Martin Memorial's 1985 fiscal year, beginning on October 1, 1984, has Martin yet achieved its budgeted patient days or admissions. In fact, Martin Memorial's bed utilization is more than 10% under budget for fiscal year 1985. (TR-66-69 P-1) Martin Memorial contends that the projected increase in the population and the aging in population in the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict will offset the decline in average length of stay and gradually increase the in-patient population. Although it is reasonable to expect that such factors would increase utilization, over the last year in District 9, use rates have gone down and admission rates have decreased slightly even though population increased and aged. In addition, it is reasonably anticipated that the future negative impact of HMOs on use and admissions will offset these population changes and contribute to further decline in utilization. Projected Utilization of Martin Memorial Hospital and the Proposed Satellite Hospital. In projecting- utilization for its existing and proposed facilities, Martin Memorial used 1984 District 9 use rates and a constant to increasing average length of stay. (R- 18) Use and admission rates have declined steadily for several years for the under-65 population and, in the first year of DRGs, dropped by over 3% for the over-65 population. Vet, despite this t-end and projections of decreasing use and admission rates in the future due to alternative delivery programs, Martin Memorial's utilization forecast uses admission rates slightly higher than the 1984 actual admission rates. (R- 18) In projecting the average length of stay for the proposed Port Salerno Hospital, Martin 'Memorial discounted 10% from its 1984 average length of stay. This discount, however, was due to projections of lower Medicare utilization and lower intensity of services at the new hospital, and makes no allowance for any further decreases in average lengths of stay. Similarly, in projecting utilization for Martin Memorial Hospital, Martin Memorial assumed an increase over the 1984 average length of stay of 6.0 days to 6.1 days in 1990. These assumptions are unreasonable in that they 'ail to fully into account the current and projected continuing decline in hospital admissions and utilization. Consequently, little weight is assigned to Martin Memorial's forecast of future bed utilization—that the satellite hospital would experience 58% occupancy in 1990, the first year of operation. Martin Memorial projects that without the proposed Port Salerno Hospital, Martin Memorial would achieve an occupancy rate of 79.4% in 1990. This utilization projection was based on population projections for Martin County done in 1984 by Dr. Stanley Smith it fails to take into account Dr. Smith's recent revision downward of the 1990 population projections for Martin County from 100,900 to 98,700. (TR-95-96, 294-95 R-6) The decline in average length of stay and hospital use rates will have a major impact on the number of empty beds in District 9 and, at least as applied to this District, the bed- need methodology of Rule 10-5.11(23), over-states the need for additional beds in 1990. The methodology uses a constant average length of stay derived from prior years. It is not an accurate predictor of future occupancy when, as now, use rates and utilization are declining and are reasonably expected to continue to decline. (TR-639-41: TR-614, 621-22 P-5) Martin Memorial's projected 79.4% occupancy rate in 1990 is overstated because it fails to fully take into account continuing declines in average length of stay and use rates, and because the 1984 population figures used to derive the 1984 use rate may be understated, thereby overstating the use rate. Similarly, using the same assumptions, an occupancy rate of 69.7% was projected for Jupiter Hospital (without the proposed Port Salerno Hospital). This projection is also overstated for the same reasons. If the Port Salerno Hospital were approved, the 1990 occupancy figures for both Martin Memorial and Jupiter Hospital would, in all likelihood, be much lower. (TR-627 P-5) 21 A more credible projection of ,Martin Memorial Hospital's 1990 occupancy rate was offered by Thomas W. Schultz, PSMC's health care planning expert. By reducing the 1984 Dis- trict 9 use rate by 2.9% to account for declining utilization at Martin Memorial during the first three months of 1985, as well as the general continuing decline in hospital utilization, Mr. Schultz projected Martin Memorial's 1990 occupancy (without the new facility) to be only 72.6%. Similarly, because use rates are still declining and because the 1985 population numbers used to calculate the rates may have been understated, this projected occupancy is overstated. (TR-628-30, 635-38; P-5) The State Health Plan and the District 9 Local Health Plan [Section 381.494(6) (c)l. requires that CON applications be reviewed "in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan "] Several specific utilization and occupancy standards are contained in the State Health Plan and the District 9 Local Health Plan. A major stated goal of the State Health Plan is to promote the efficient utilization of acute care services by raising the occupancy rates or acute care hospitals. (R-20) It identifies 80% as the appropriate minimum occupancy level for acute care hospitals: an average annual occupancy rate of at least 80% is made an objective. As conceded by Debra S. Kolb, Ph.D., Martin Memorial's expert health planner, the 80% occupancy standard is an appropriate minimum standard which should be "looked at as a hurdle before beds are added." (TR- 289) She adds, however, that "there are other factors, such as . . . size of the facility, seasonality issues, age problems. . . that would warrant special cases." (T?.-289) By policy and practice, DHRS considers current occupancy levels to be an important criterion and has applied this 80% occupancy standard in reviewing CON applications. Its use of these standards is illustrated by its initial action on the various applications which were once part of this proceeding. DHRS granted Lawnwood Hospital's application for several stated reasons, one of which was a 1982 occupancy rate of 90%. Martin Memorial's initial 150-bed application and PBMC's 60-bed application (later dropped) were denied, in substantial part, because of low utilization rates in 1982 and because there was an adequate supply of beds currently available. (Interestingly, both Martin Memorial and PBMC had 1982 occupancy rates exceeding 70%.) As stated by Gene Nelson, then supervisor of DHRS' CON review section, in the State Agency Action Report denying PBMC's application: "Overall utilization for Palm Beach Martin County Medical Center for 1982 was 72.3% and medical/surgical utilization was 76.4%, neither being sufficiently high to justify additional beds." (R-13) The Acute Care portion of District 9's Local Health Plan (1984), contains "Recommendations by Priority Ranking" reflecting policies and priorities which, according to the local health council, should be used (in addition to the DHRS bed-need methodology) in planning and allocating acute care bed-need. Priority I delineates the subdistricts for purposes of allocating acute care hospital beds: Priority II establishes the_ subdistrict allocation methodology: Priority III establishes an occupancy rate which must be met before additional beds may approved: Before needed beds, as determined by Rule 10-5.11(23), may be approved, applicants requesting additional acute care beds should demonstrate that certain occupancy thresholds have been achieved relative to medical/surgical, obstetric, pediatric and ICU/CCU beds. The average annual occupancy rate (most recent calendar year) in the applying facility and its corresponding subdistrict average, should equal or exceed the following levels (inclusive of CON approved beds): Medical/Surgical 75% Obstetrical 65% Pediatric 65% ICU/CCU, Monitored & Intermediate Care 75% (e.s.) (R-10, pp.48-49) The rationale for this standard is set forth in the plan: With the advent of the Medicare prospective reimbursement system, there is literally no way to estimate the magnitude of impact that this reimbursement mechanism will have on hospital admissions, occupancy rates, and average lengths of stay. Therefore, relying upon the national standard of 4 beds/1000 population was not adequate. There is a need for an indicator based solely on utilization for the elderly. Since the reimbursement mechanism for non-Medicare patients has not changed, a resource based methodology has been utilized for this population group. Moreover, the program goals of the Local Health Plan state that the overall occupancy rate in District 9--as a whole--for licensed acute care beds as well as the occupancy rate for medical/surgical beds should equal or exceed 756. (Id. at 47) These minimum annual district and subdistrict occupancy rates take seasonality and age considerations into account. Bed utilization or occupancy standards are the only bed-need criteria that look to actual, verifiable data reflecting current conditions as opposed to forecasts, which look to the future.6 Failure to achieve the occupancy standards of Priority III A of the Local Health Plan creates, at least, a strong presumption against the approval of the project. In exceptional situations, however, additional beds may be approved even though the occupancy standard is not met. A typical example projected continuing decline in hospital admissions and utilization. Consequently, little weight is assigned to Martin Memorial's forecast of future bed utilization--that the satellite hospital would experience 58% occupancy in 1990.the first year of operation would be where there was a geographical access problem.7 Both the State and District 9 Health Plans cite the high cost of unused hospital beds which add to the cost of hospitalization. (R-20, p.70: R-10, p.10) A primary goal of both plans is to raise occupancy rates and eliminate excess beds. With this in mind, it is reasonable to give considerable weight to current utilization rates even though a numerical "need" for the beds is projected by the DHRS bed-need methodology.8 1984 bed utilization at Martin Memorial, Port St. Lucie and Jupiter Hospitals, as well as average utilization for District 9 and the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict, fall well below the minimum occupancy standards normally applied by DHRS and set out in the State and Local Health Plans. These minimum occupancy standards have not been met and are not reasonably projected to be met by 1990. Considerable weight should be accorded this factor since that is the effect of the State and Local Health Plans and DHRS' normal practice. Moreover, since occupancy rates are based on actual current conditions, they are less subject to manipulation, and inject a healthy measure of reality into CON decision-making during a time of great change in the health care industry. Economies and Improvement Services Derived From Operation of Joint, Cooperative or Shared Resources. [Another CON criterion is whether there will be "[p]robable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from the operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources." Section 3fll.494(6)(c)5., Florida Statutes.] Because the proposed project is a satellite hospital, there will be economies and improvements in services realized from the operation of joint, cooperative or shared health care resources, as compared to the operation of a wholly separate free-standing hospital. The satellite hospital will not offer obstetrics or a defined pediatric unit. It will not have a CAT Scanner, a -- personnel office similar to Martin Memorial's, or a hospital laundry. It will have an emergency room, normal operating room suites, and radiology and lab services, although the more complex lab tests will be performed at Martin Memorial Hospital. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities. [CON applications are also reviewed in context with the "need for research and educational facilities . . .." Section 381.494 (6)(c)7, Florida Statutes.] The proposed satellite hospital will be located directly adjacent to the Martin County campus of Indian River Community College ("IRCC"). The IRCC campus has an Allied Health Building with approximately nine classrooms, a nursing 120 and an emergency medical technician lab. IRCC has a contract with Martin Memorial Hospital which allows IRCC students to use Martin Memorial facilities for clinical training. Clinical training is an important part of the allied health curriculum at IRCC. Construction of the satellite hospital next to the IRCC campus would benefit the Allied Health Programs since there could be joint use of equipment, facilities, and personnel, and a better opportunity to invite doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals to the classroom. The satellite hospital would also be more convenient to students, in terms of scheduling and transportation, than Martin Memorial Hospital, where they now receive clinical training. Although the proposed satellite hospital would enhance the IRCC health care training programs, there is no evidence that the clinical training programs now provided at Martin Memorial Hospital are inadequate. The proposed facility is not predicated on a claim that its primary purpose will be to serve as a research or educational facility. Financial Feasibility of the Proposed Satellite Hospital. [Another CON criterion is "[t]he immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal." Section 381.494 (6)(c)9, Florida Statutes.] Estimated Project Costs The estimated costs of the movable equipment for the proposed satellite hospital are reasonable. (Stipulation, P.3) The real property in Port Salerno where the proposed satellite hospital would be located, is owned by Martin Memorial and is of adequate size and otherwise appropriate for the proposed project. (Stipulation, p.3) The estimated cost of construction and fixed equipment is $7,490,625.00, which amounts a cost of $117.50t per square foot. (The hospital will have 850 square feet per bed: $117.50 X 850 X 75 = $7,490,625.00.) his is a reasonable cost for bidding the project in the spring of 1986. Estimates of the architect's fee ($545,317.00), the cost for surveys and borings ($25,000.00j, the 3% contingency cost ($251,000.00), the developmental costs ($195,000.00), the site work and utilities ( $960, 000.03 ), the actual land costs.($595,000.00), and the financing and refinancing costs($3,100,770.00) have also been shown to be reasonable. Short-Term Financial Feasibility Martin Memorial has sufficient funds to make the equity contribution necessary to obtain financing. It also has the ability to raise $16,370,000.00 through the sale of tax exempt bonds, which appear to be marketable. It is likely that Martin Memorial would be able to secure the necessary funds for construction. The proposed satellite hospital would be financially feasible in the short-term. Martin Memorial has proven its ability to operate a hospital efficiently and profitably. Even with the advent of the DRG payment system, Martin Memorial Hospital has continued to operate profitably. During the initial DRG phase-in year of 1984, Martin Memorial benefited financially from the use of the new prospective payment schedule. Even if bed use at the satellite hospital is less than projected, or desired, during the start-up years, it is likely that Martin Memorial would be able to subsidize its operation until, with expected population growth, utilization increases and it becomes financially self- sustaining. Long-Term Financial Feasibility The proposed satellite hospital is also financially feasible in the long-term his conclusion is supported by a financial analysis utilizing reasonable assumptions based on Martin Memorial Hospital's historical experience an t financial costs obtained from a qualified securities analyst. The financial analyst also used bed utilization projections supplied by Martin Memorial's qualified earth care planner. Although the reliability of the 1990 utilization forecast is questionable, over the long-term--with projected increases in population9 is likely that the proposed hospital would become financially feasible, self-sustaining, and able to meet its operating expenses and debt service payments. I. Availability of Manpower and Resources [Another CON criterion is "[t]he availability of resources, including health manpower . . .." Section 381.494 (6)(c)8, Florida Statutes.] Martin Memorial has an in-place recruiting department which, in the past, has successfully recruited new employees for expansion programs. It has the capability of recruiting, training, and staffing the 175 full-time equivalent medical personnel shown in its CON application. There has been no showing that the hiring of employees for the satellite hospital will significantly impact other facilities or that there is a shortage of health manpower and resources. III. Need for the Proposed Hospital (using a planning horizon of January, 1990) Based on a Balanced Consideration of all CON Criteria_ ["Need" for a proposed facility, under CON law, is determined by "a balanced consideration of all the statutory [and rule] criteria." Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Johnson & Johnson, 447 So. 2d 361, 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) See, Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes. DHRS may not adopt a rule allowing it to "ignore some statutory criteria and emphasize others." Id. Nor may it adopt a methodology, in rule form, which "rigidly control[s] the granting or withholding of [CON] approval." Humana, Inc. et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA Case No. AY-422, Opinion filed May 16, 1985), 10 F.L.W. 1222.] (a) The foregoing evidentiary findings support an ultimate finding that the proposed satellite hospital is not needed, either now or within the planning horizon of January, 1990. When measured against all pertinent statutory and rule criteria, the factors favoring approval of Martin Memorial's application are outweighed by the factors supporting denial. The DHRS numerical bed-need methodology projects a January, 1990 "need", but barely so. Further, the methodology, as one criterion among many, is assigned less weight since it is a less accurate predictor of "need" in times, such as these, when in-patient bed use is steadily declining. This decline is pervasive, has continued, unabated, for over 13 months and has not yet bottomed-out. The methodology uses bed-need figures rooted in the past and does not adequately reflect this decline. Allocation of bed-need to the Martin/St. Lucie Subdistrict shows a more substancial "need" (103 beds), but this figure is, in part, also derived from the DHRS methodology. There is an adequate current supply of available acute care beds at existing facilities, similar in nature. No geographical access problem has been shown. The existing hospitals which serve the area proposed to be served by the satellite hospital, as well as the subdistrict and district, have 1984 occupancy rates considerably below the,30% occupancy standard generally applied by DHRS and health care planners. There is not a current shortage of beds. In January, 1990, it is likely that the supply of acute care beds will continue to be adequate. In all likelihood, daily occupancy rates at Martin Memorial and in the subdistrict will still be below the 80% standard. At best, Martin Memorial has shown that during two or three peak winter months, its own institution-specific occupancy rate will exceed 90%.10 But on a short-term basis, such a rate is doable and consistent with quality health care. Current bed utilization, a readily ascertainable criterion which reflects actual conditions, should be accorded considerable weight on the scale of criterion when, as now, the health care industry is in rapid flux and past trends have been disrupted, or even displaced. With declining average lengths of stay and anticipated growth in alternative delivery systems, it is reasonably expected that acute care bed use will continue to decline. The steady drop in bed use makes it more likely that the currently existing and licensed or approved beds in the area will be adequate through January 1990. Martin Memorial's utilization forecast failed to fully take into account the steady decline in bed use. Approval of the proposed hospital would be inconsistent with the State Health Plan, which identifies 80% as a minimum occupancy rate for acute care hospitals and, more particularly, with the Local Health Plan (Priority III) which, with few exceptions, does not allow new beds (irrespective of the DHRS methodology numbers) until specified occupancy thresholds have been met. These thresholds have not yet been met. The proposed hospital would be financially feasible in the short-and-long-term, enhance competition, and improve the education of health care students at the adjacent Indian River Community College. These benefits, however, are outweighed by the other factors which support a conclusion that the proposed hospital will not be needed by January, 1990. Construction of an unneeded hospital would have the effect of reducing occupancy rates at nearby hospitals and exacerbating the problem of excess bed capacity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Martin Memorial's application or a CON to construct and operate the Port Salerno Hospital be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, J . Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1985.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondents pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondents. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Filed May 8, 2013 11:27 AM Division of Administrative Hearings 2. The Respondents shall pay the Agency $600.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 3 day of AM , 2013. De A a Elizabgth Dudek, Zegretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 CERTIFY that a true and correct_capy of this Final Order,was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on thos Oday of Hay , 2013. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Andrea M. Lang, Senior Attorney Karl D. Acuff Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Attorney for the Respondent Karl D. Acuff, P.A. 1615 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32309 (U.S. Mail) R. Bruce McKibben Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
The Issue The question in these cases is whether proposed rule 27J-1.062 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to section 120.54(4), Fla. Stat. (1985). The stipulated issues in these cases are: Does the Hospital Cost Containment Board have the authority to reduce a hospital's gross revenue per adjusted admission in applying the penalty specified in section 395.5094, Fla. Stat. (1985)? If so, may the reduced gross revenue per adjusted admission serve as the base for comparison in evaluating the rate of increase in the subsequent year's budgeted gross revenue per adjusted admission? No ruling will be made as to the second issue since the parties did not submit evidence or argument on the point. It appears that the issue has been abandoned. Florida Hospital Association, Inc., presented three exhibits, Florida League of Hospitals, Inc., presented one exhibit, the parties presented one joint exhibit, the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) presented two exhibits, and the prehearing stipulation was made a Hearing Officer's exhibit. All exhibits are in evidence. Testimony was presented from two witnesses, John Benz and James Bracher.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Florida Hospital Association, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized for the benefit of its 220 member hospitals, including not-for-profit, investor-owned, and governmental hospitals. T. 6. Petitioner Florida League of Hospitals, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized for the benefit of its members, which are 80 investor- owned hospitals. The Respondent is the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB). The Intervenor is the Public Counsel on behalf of the Citizens of the State of Florida. The following findings of fact are based upon stipulated facts: Throughout calendar year 1985, various drafts and revisions of the proposed rule were prepared by Respondent. The proposed rule was analyzed and discussed at meetings of the Financial Analysis Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) in August, October, and November 1985 and in January 1986. As a result of industry concern raised at those TAP meetings, Respondent made several substantial revisions to the proposed rule including: Amending subsection (3)(a) regarding the offset to the penalty from indigent care assessments, to allow credit for assessments paid by the hospital, rather than accrued in the fiscal year; Amending subsection (3)(b) to provide a "carry forward" provision in the rule that would allow hospitals to carry forward into subsequent years the amount of assessments paid minus the amount of revenues received for purposes of reducing the excess used in calculating the penalty; Amending subsection (5)(e) of the rule to provide that, in applying the penalty to gross revenues, the penalty would not apply to gross revenue reflecting charity care and certain fixed-priced government payors; and Amending subsection (5)(e) to allow other adjustments to the penalty on gross revenue [that might be justified as fair and equitable to all payors. In addition to the substantive changes described above, Respondent made various technical revisions to the proposed rule in response to suggestions from representatives of the hospital industry. The HCCB voted to adopt rule 27J-1.062 at its January 30, 1986, Board meeting, and instructed staff to initiate the rulemaking process. Joint Exhibit 1 is the April 17, 1986, draft of the proposed rule. This draft has not yet been published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, but is the proposed rule that is challenged herein. The draft incorporates the following stipulations: Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of proposed rule 27J-1.062 shall be deleted from the proposed rule. Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 27J-1.062 shall be amended to specify that the budget reduction imposed pursuant to the proposed rule shall apply pro rata to the 12 months immediately following final Board action. Subsection (6) of proposed rule 27J-1.062 shall be deleted. Paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of proposed Rule 27J-1.062 shall be changed to specify that adjustments are based on adjusted admissions in the audited actual experience for the most recently complete fiscal year. Paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of proposed rule 27J-1.062 shall be changed to specify that the Board shall consider changes in case-mix in levying any penalty pursuant to the rule, It is officially recognized that the Respondent, the HCCB, published proposed rule 27J-1.062 in Vol. 12, Issue No. 7, at pp. 606-7, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 14, 1986. The proposed rule establishes a method of calculating the penalty provided in section 395.5094(1), Fla. Stat. (1985), which is commonly called the "main" penalty. Joint Ex. 1. Rule challenges by the Petitioners were timely filed. The proposed rule, implementing the above statute, requires an annual comparison by the HCCB of the hospital's audited actual experience for that year with both the Board approved budget for that year and the audited actual experience for the prior year. Joint Ex. 1. The proposed rule first calculates what is to be termed the "excess." The excess is the lesser of the following two amounts: either the absolute dollar amount of the difference between the audited actual net revenue per adjusted admission (NRAA) for the most recently completed fiscal year and the NRAA in the Board approved budget for the same year, or the absolute dollar difference between the audited actual NRAA for the most recently completed fiscal year and the prior fiscal year and the prior year's audited actual NRAA increased by the maximum allowable rate of increase (NARI). The Executive Director of the Board testified that the penalty will not be applied unless the hospital's actual audited experience for net revenues per adjusted admission exceeds both of these bases. T. 74-5. The proposed rule then contains a procedure for reducing the excess and the excess as reduced is called the "adjusted excess." The "penalty" then is calculated by multiplying the adjusted excess by the total adjusted admissions based on the actual audited data for the most recently completed fiscal year. The proposed rule also establishes procedures for reducing the hospital's budget based upon the penalty. Subparagraph (5), proposed rule 27J- 1.062. The reduction applies on a pro rata basis to the 12 months immediately following final Board action on the penalty. For the first occurrence within a five-year period, the Board is to reduce the hospital's budget for net revenues up to the amount of the adjusted excess not to exceed 5 percent of the prior year's actual net revenues inflated by the NARI. Any amount in excess of the 5 percent is then imposed as a fine. Subparagraphs (5)(a) and (c), proposed rule 27J-1.062. For the second occurrence within a five-year period, the Board is to reduce the hospital's budget for net revenues up to the amount of the adjusted excess not to exceed 2 percent of the prior year's actual net revenues inflated by the NARI. Any amount in excess of the 2 percent is then imposed as a fine. Subparagraphs (5)(a) and (c), proposed rule 27J-1.062. For the third occurrence within a five-year period, the Board does not reduce the budget of the hospital in any amount, but simply applies the entire penalty as a cash fine. Subparagraph (5)(b), proposed rule 27J-1.062. Finally, subparagraph (5)(e) of proposed rule 27J-1.062 provides that the gross revenue in the hospital's budget must be reduced. First, pursuant to subparagraph (5)(d) of the proposed rule, the percentage of the reduction of net revenues is calculated by dividing the amount of the penalty by the amount of actual audited net revenue for the most recently completed fiscal year. The percentage of the reduction of net revenues is then multiplied by the actual audited gross revenues for the most recently completed fiscal year. The result is multiplied again by the percentage of the hospital's gross revenue generated from sources other than charity care (which is further defined in the proposed rule) and fixed-price government payors specified in the FHURS (Florida Hospital Uniform Reporting System). Manual. To convert the reduced net and gross revenues in the budget to the NRRA and GRRA format, the reduced amounts are divided by the number of adjusted admissions in the budget. Subparagraph (5)(f) of the proposed rule. Petitioner, Florida Hospital Association, Inc., presented the testimony of John Benz, who was accepted as an expert in hospital finance, accounting, and budgeting. T. 17. Mr. Benz testified regarding the asserted effect of the proposed rule on a hypothetical group of eleven hospitals. See FHA Ex. 1. In this hypothetical, hospital number three was chosen as the hospital penalized, and the penalty amount was assumed to be $150 in gross revenues per adjusted admission. Hospital number three initially ranked above the 50th percentile, but just below the 80th percentile for GRAA. The hypothetical example further assumed that gross revenues per adjusted admission for each hospital would increase annually for ten years at 7 percent. It thus assumed no Board-approved GRAA in excess of 7 percent, or no automatically approved increase to GRAA above 7 percent. The current MARI is 7 percent. T. 88. It also assumed that the adjusted admissions for hospital number three would be 10,000 each of the ten years. T. 24. This is typical of a 300 bed hospital. T. 29. The assumption of uniform admissions is reasonable T. 54-5. It was also assumed in the hypothetical that the HCCB will annually use the GRAA as adjusted as the basis for future year budget calculations and determining the 50th and 80th percentiles for the group. Finally, the example assumed that a 5 percent overage is equal to $250 and a 2 percent overage is equal to $100. T. 34. The hypothetical example then calculated what the GRAA for all eleven hospitals would be for the ten-year period both without application of a penalty to gross revenues and with the penalty applied to gross revenues. In the first year, application of the penalty to GRAA lowers the GRAA of hospital three by $150, and lowers the total gross revenues of that hospital by $1,500,000. T. The reduction in GRAA lowers the 80th percentile GRAA by $20, or about 0.5 percent. Carrying these changes forward using the constant inflation factor of 7 percent, by the tenth year the GRAA of hospital three is $278 lower than it would have been without the penalty in the first year, the loss of gross revenues in the tenth year is $2,780,000, the cumulative loss of gross revenues in the ten years is $20,790,000, and the 80th percentile GRAA is less than it would have been by $55, or about 0.5 percent. T. 38; FHA Ex. 1. The decrease in the 80th percentile GRAA would potentially affect all eleven hospitals in the group. The hypothetical example presented by the Florida Hospital Association, Inc., also set forth a calculation of the asserted effect of the penalty after ten years imposed as a first, second, or third violation in a five-year period. T. 42. The asserted effect is mathematically different because the rule allocates the penalty differently for the first, second, or third violations. As mentioned above, the example assumes that a 5 percent overage is $250 and a 2 percent overage is $100. Again assuming a 7 percent rate of increase for each year in GRAA, the asserted effect of the three kinds of penalties is: Violation Total 10 year Total Cash Fine Asserted total reduction to effect gross revenues First $20,790,000 -0- $20,790,000 Second 13,880,000 500,000 14,380,000 Third -0- 1,500,000 1,500,000 As will be discussed ahead, it is not possible on this record to conclude that the above three-tiered penalty procedure will result in a harsher penalty for the first violation since (1) it is not certain that there will actually be a reduction to gross revenues for the entire 10 years, and (2) there is no expert evidence as to the time value of the cash fines. In the hypothetical discussed above, assuming as was assumed in the hypothetical that adjusted admissions would be 10,000 each year and that the GRAA would increase at 7 percent each year, in ten years, hospital three would have total gross revenues of $777,140,000. It would have lost $20,790,000 in gross revenues in the hypothetical example, and the sum of these two figures is $797,930,000. Thus, the percentage of the asserted amount of lost revenues is 2.6 percent. The Respondent, the Hospital Cost Containment Board, presented the testimony of James Bracher, Executive Director of the Board, who was accepted as an expert in health care financial regulation, including certificate of need, rate review, and budget regulation. T. 72-3. Mr. Bracher presented another hypothetical example to illustrate the asserted effects of the penalty applied only to net revenues and applied to both net and gross revenues. The hypothetical, contained in HCCB Ex. 2, assumes that net revenues will be 70 percent of gross revenues in any given year, that gross revenues will increase yearly by 8 percent, that 50 percent are fixed government payers, that the penalty is to be applied 3 months in 1987 and 9 months in 1988, and that gross revenues are initially $150,000 in 1987. T. 81-82. Finally, the example assumes that the penalty will be 5 percent of net revenues, and is a first violation penalty. T. 82. The result of the HCCB's hypothetical is that if the 5 percent penalty is applied only to net revenues, the penalty is completely recovered from those revenues in the first two years (pro rated since the first year has only a 3- month impact under the hypothetical assumption), and thereafter, net revenues return to the same level as if no penalty had been levied. This occurs directly as a result of the assumption that net revenues will always be 70 percent of gross revenues. T. 83. If the penalty is applied to gross revenues as well as net revenues, the HCCB hypothetical asserts that both gross revenues and net revenues will be permanently lowered. T. 83. This occurs because gross revenues in future years are assumed to be only a constant percentage increase from the penalty year, and net revenues are assumed to be 70 percent of gross revenues in any given year. By 1990, the gross revenues of the hypothetical hospital would be less by $4,462, or by about 2.4 percent, and net revenues would be less by $3,123, which of course would be the same percentage reduction since net revenues are directly related to gross revenues. HCCB Ex. 2. A projected budget is based in part upon historical budgets, and thus, if an earlier budget is incorrectly too high, it is possible that the error may be carried into the future. T. 96. However, the current Florida regulatory scheme provides all hospitals with the opportunity to justify increases in gross revenues annually, based upon current information. T. 86-7. It is possible in a future year for a hospital to gain HCCB approval of a budget for increased gross revenues due to new or expanded services, a change in case mix, or a change in length of stay. T. 90, 51. It is also possible for increases in GRAA to be automatically approved by the HCCB if the hospital is ranked below the 50th percentile in its group, or if the hospital is ranked below the 80th percentile in its group and the increase is less than the MARI. Thus, it is possible that the effect of a penalty to gross revenues in one year may be cancelled out in a future year by increases to GRAA due to approval of a new budget justified upon new facts or due to automatic approval. None of the hypotheticals presented in this case are expected to actually occur precisely as set forth above, and only serve as reasonable illustrations of the potential mathematical relationships between the penalty and future gross or net revenues. As discussed above, since a hospital might be able to justify a higher GRAA in a future year, the Petitioner's and Respondent's hypotheticals might never occur, or at least it is impossible to say whether the cumulative effect may continue for ten years, five years, or forever. Similarly, the assumption of the examples used, that a uniform increase in GRAA of 7 percent or 8 percent per year, while useful as a mathematical example, is unlikely to actually occur. T. 90. The rates of increase for competitor hospitals of the North Broward Hospital District have not been uniform. T. 55. Finally, the assumption of the HCCB that NRAA will be a uniform 70 percent of GRAA might be roughly correct, but in fact the relationship will vary from year to year. T. 123-4. However, notwithstanding the lack of precise examples, several conclusions can be drawn from the hypotheticals presented. First, although it is impossible to predict how long and how much of a cumulative penalty will be felt by a hospital if the penalty is applied to gross revenues, it is relatively certain that the effect of the penalty on gross revenues will continue for several years beyond the base year. This will occur because the budget review process of the HCCB is based primarily upon past history of GRAA. T. 120. If a hospital's GRAA is lowered in a single year, it is likely that this loss of approved GRAA will affect a number of future years. Second, it is also relatively certain that if the penalty is applied only to NRAA, a hospital will be able to return to the same NRAA it would have had without the penalty in a relatively short time, even if one assumes that the relationship between NRAA and GRAA will not uniformly be 70 percent each year. This should occur because GRAA has not been lowered, and thus stands as an approved basis in future years for justification of the higher NRAA. Indeed, if the GRAA is below the 50th percentile, approval will be automatic. Gross revenues minus other operating revenues equals total patient charges. T. 51, 57. Gross revenues minus other operating revenues is what is billable to the patient. Id; T. 56-7. Not all charges billed are collected. The percentage of uncollected patient billings differs from hospital to hospital. Indigents do not pay, and the percentage of indigent care can be 10 percent in some hospitals. T. 97. Medicare may not pay the entire amount billed for a Medicare eligible patient. T. 97. In Florida, hospitals may have 45-50 percent of their patients as Medicare patients. T. 98. Health maintenance organization patients and preferred provider patients may be billed discounted rates. T. 97. Net revenues equal the amount received from patients, and reflect gross receipts from charges to patients. T. 50, 57, 58. Net revenues are a product of patient charges, but are not a direct reflection of such charges. T. 59. Gross revenues thus do not "equal" the amount paid by patients since at least one-half of all patients in Florida do not themselves pay charges. However, excluding other operating revenue, gross revenues do reflect the charges paid by charge-paying patients and the charges paid by third-party payors whose payments are charge-based or discounted, which is somewhat less than one-half of all patients in Florida. There is a significant relationship between gross revenues and charges to patients such that the reduction of gross revenues in a budget is likely, over time, to contain or slow the increase of charges to Florida patients. Petitioner's example of a lump sum Medicare settlement causing a penalty due to increase of net revenues, without increase in gross revenues, is not likely to occur. The HCCB has procedures whereby receipt of a lump sum Medicare settlement may be recognized and approved through budget amendment. T. 90-3. Two prior final orders of the HCCB are in evidence as arguable precedent for the case at bar. These are the final orders in the Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches case, DOAH Case Number 85-1666H, FHA Ex. 2, and the American Medical International cases, DOAH Case Numbers 85-2296H, 85-2297H, and 85-2265H, HCCB Ex. 1. In the Lake Hospital case, the Board applied the base year adjustment of section 395.509(11), Fla. Stat. (1984), to net revenues only. In the American Medical International cases, the Board construed its authority to review and approve "budgets" to include the power to approve or disapprove net revenue amounts as well as gross revenues. The North Broward Hospital District invests excess funds at a rate of interest of 8 percent to 10 percent. T. 50. The practical effect of the proposed rule is to provide a way to return a hospital to the approximate place it would have been had it not exceeded either its approved budget or its actual audited experience inflated by the MARI. A secondary effect is to alter the percentile relationship of all hospitals to the level it would have been had the subject hospital not exceeded these limits. If it is lawful for the HCCB to reduce GRAA as is intended in the proposed rule, and if the HCCB adopts the proposed rule and fails to follow it, the failure would unlawfully benefit both the subject hospital and all hospitals in the group since both the GRAA of the hospital and the percentile ranking of GRAA of all hospitals in the group, in that event, should be reduced. It would be an unlawful detriment in that event to Florida consumers as well.
The Issue The issue is whether the methodology employed by respondent in calculating petitioners' budget letter gross revenues per adjusted admission is a rule, not duly promulgated, and thus is an illegal exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: A. Parties Petitioners, Easte Point Hospital, Inc. and others, are fourteen hospitals in the State of Florida who are subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of respondent, Health Care Cost Containment Board (Board). Petitioner, Florida League of Hospitals, Inc., is a nonprofit organization which is organized and maintained for the benefit of the proprietary hospitals which comprise its membership. The Board is a state agency charged with the responsibility of annually reviewing hospital budgets to insure that a hospital's charges do not exceed certain established thresholds. Intervenor, Citizens of the State of Florida, is represented by the Office of the Public Counsel. That office has the duty of representing citizens in all proceedings before the Board. Events Leading to the Filing of the Rule Challenges Petitioners are required to annually file their projected budgets with the Board for its review and approval. This controversy pertains to the filing of budgets for fiscal year 1992. There are two types of budget filings authorized by law. First, a hospital may file what is known as a budget letter, which is a one- page submission on a form provided by the Board. In preparing such a letter, the hospitals are required to provide information regarding their gross revenues per adjusted admission (GRAA) and maximum allowable rate of increase (MARI), two financial indicators that are used by the Board in measuring the reasonableness of a hospital's charges. A budget letter is to be filed whenever a hospital does not intend to increase its charges (GRAA) in the next fiscal year by more than the percentage amount specified in its approved MARI. Secondly, a hospital may file a detailed budget which is much more complicated than the budget letter and requires the completion of a twenty-seven page form. The preparation of a detailed budget is obviously more time- consuming and expensive than a budget letter and requires the hospital to justify its entire budget. The detailed budget is to be filed whenever a hospital intends to increase its charges (GRAA) from one fiscal year to the next by a greater percentage amount than is specified in the MARI. These cases deal with the legitimacy of a methodology used by the Board in determining whether a hospital is eligible to file a budget letter. In this proceeding, each of the fourteen hospitals filed budget letters with the Board in May 1991. After the budget documents were reviewed by the Board's staff, on June 21, 1991, the Board issued virtually identical proposed agency action to each hospital advising the hospital that its budget letter was "nonconforming for the following reason: The hospital's maximum GRAA should be $ , instead of $ , ", with the appropriate dollar amounts inserted in the blanks. The letter went on to advise each hospital that it should resubmit a corrected budget document and until it did so, its submission would be considered incomplete. The effect of the Board's action was to reduce each hospital's budget letter GRAA and the amount of revenues (charges) it could receive in the next fiscal year unless it agreed to file a detailed budget. The hospitals are accordingly affected by the proposed agency action and thus have standing to being this action. Likewise, since the methodology employed by the Board in rejecting the budget letters affects all members of the Florida League of Hospitals, Inc. who file budget letters, that organization also has standing to participate. The parties have further stipulated to the standing of intervenor, Citizens of the State of Florida. Although the proposed agency action does not show the methodology used by the Board in reaching its conclusion that the "maximum GRAA" was overstated, the record reveals that the Board utilized a certain methodology to calculate the "base GRAA", the first calculation in the budget letter review process. /2 This methodology is described in the second sentence of Subsection 407.50(3), Florida Statutes (1989) as follows: In determining the base, the hospital's prior year audited actual experience shall be used unless the hospital's prior year audited experience exceeded the applicable rate of increase in which case the base shall be the gross revenue per adjusted admission from the year before the prior year, and then inflated by the applicable rate of increase for the current year. Petitioners concede that the methodology used by the Board tracks the language in the above statute verbatim. However, they contend that, when the language in subsection 407.50(2)(a) is considered, it becomes apparent that the use of this methodology is the review of budget letters is not clearly called for, and thus the methodology is a policy having all of the attributes of a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to chapter 120. Conversely, respondent and intervenor claim the methodology is not a policy but simply an interpretation of the controlling statute. Is the Methodology a Rule? By virtue of rather extensive amendments to the law in 1988, budget letters were first authorized for use by hospitals beginning with budget years 1990 and 1991. Prior to that time, all hospitals filed detailed budgets. There was no quarrel over the manner in which hospitals performed their calculations in the first two budget letter filings since subsection 407.50(1) clearly specified the methodology for making all calculations during the first two years. This controversy arises because all subsequent filings of budget letters are controlled by language found in other portions of section 407.50. The relevant portions of that statute read as follows: (a) Except for hospitals filing a budget pursuant to subsection (3), each hospital, at least 90 days prior to the commencement of its next fiscal year, shall file with he board a certified statement, hereafter known as the "budget letter", acknowledging its applicable maximum allowable rate of increase in gross revenue per adjusted admission from the previous fiscal year as calculated pursuant to s. 407.002(17) and its maximum projected gross revenue per adjusted admission for the next fiscal year, and shall affirm that the hospital shall not exceed such applicable maximum allowable rate of increase. . . * * * At least 90 days prior to the beginning of its fiscal year, each hospital requesting a rate of increase in gross revenue per adjusted admission in excess of the maximum allowable rate of increase for the hospital's next fiscal year, shall be subject to detailed budget review and shall file its projected budget with the board for approval. In determining the base, the hospital's prior year audited actual experience shall be used unless the hospital's prior year audited actual experience exceeded the applicable rate of increase in which case the base shall be the gross revenue per adjusted admission from the year before the prior year, increased by the then applicable rate of increase for the current year. * * * A reading of the above statute indicates that subsection 407.50(2) (a) prescribes the form and manner for a budget letter submission. The submission consists primarily of a certified statement by the hospital acknowledging "its applicable maximum allowable rate of increase in gross revenue per adjusted admission from the previous fiscal year as calculated pursuant to s. 407.0C2(17) and its maximum projected gross revenue per adjusted admission for tie next fiscal year, and shall affirm that the hospital shall not exceed such applicable maximum allowable rate of increase. At the same time, subsection 407.50(2) (a) provides that its provisions shall apply to all hospitals "except those filing a (detailed) budget pursuant to subsection (3)". However, the subsection does not prescribe the manner in which the budget letter's base GRAA should be calculated. On the other hand, subsection 407.50(3) appears, at least facially, to impose certain requirements upon detailed budget filings, including the time requirements for filing a detailed budget, who must file one, and the manner in which to calculate the "base". Thus, a literal reading of the statute could lead the reader to reasonably conclude that, while subsection 407.50(2) (a) does not prescribe the manner in which the base GRAA should be calculated for purposes of a budget letter submission, the same judgment can be reached with respect to subsection 407.50(3). In other words, an affected person would not necessarily know from a reading of the law that the base GRAA for a budget letter submission filed under subsection (2) (a) would be calculated using a methodology found in subsection (3). Accordingly, it is found that the methodology used by the Board in calculating the budget letter GPAA is not a statutory interpretation but instead is a policy. While respondent and intervenor presented evidence to justify and explain the rationale for calculating the budget letter base GRAA in this manner, this evidence is more relevant in the companion section 120.57(1) cases. The methodology employed by the Board is one of general applicability since it applies to all hospitals who file budget letters in fiscal year 1992 and beyond. It is applied uniformly without discretion by agency personnel to all hospitals, requires compliance and has the direct and consistent effect of law. The policy has not been adopted as a rule.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $2,000. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Filed June 24, 2014 12:07 PM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this /f day of Pen 2 , 2014. Leb Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this 7) day of , 2014. ‘hes , Agency Cler| # Agency ealth Care Aditfinistration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Andrea Lang Linzie F. Bogan Office of the General Counsel Administrative Law Judge Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Thomas W. Caufman, Esq. Attorney for Summerville 14 LLC d/b/a Emeritus at Bonita Springs Quitairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. 4905 W. Laurel Street, 2" Floor Tampa, Florida 33607 (U.S. Mail)
The Issue Whether the Health Care Cost Containment Board correctly determined the amount of the Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund assessments for the period April 1, 1986, through March 31, 1987, and the period April 1, 1987, through December 31, 1987, attributable to the operation of the Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact These findings of fact were stipulated to by the parties. Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, formerly known as Miami General Hospital, is a 352-bed acute-care hospital located at 17300 NW 7th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. It holds HRS license 2288 and has been assigned HCCB number 10-0222. Its fiscal year is the calendar year. It has been owned by Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd., a Florida Limited partnership, since December of 1987. As of January 1, 1986, and for sometime prior to that, the hospital was known as Miami General Hospital and operated with a fiscal year ending March 31. On August 15, 1986, the HCCB certified to HRS that 1.5 percent of the $40,101,199 net annual operating revenue of Miami General Hospital for its fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, was $601,517.98. (Hospital Exhibit 1) As of January 1, 1987, the owner of Miami General Hospital was Miami General Hospital, Inc. (The majority shareholder of Miami General Hospital, Inc., was International Medical Centers, Inc., ("IMC"). Miguel Recarey, Jr., was president of IMC). (HX 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9) Under subsection (7) of Section 407.05, Fla. Stat., and HCCB Fla. Admin. Code Rule 10N-1.004(3)(a), an audited actual report for fiscal year ending March 31, 1987 (hereafter "the 1987 audited actual report") was due within 120 days of that date; i.e., on or about July 31, 1987. However, on May 14, 1987, prior to the date the foregoing report was required to be filed, IMC was placed in receivership by the Florida Department of Insurance in Leon County Circuit Court Case No. 87-1456. On June 2, 1987, HRS was notified by Miami General Hospital that the hospital was in receivership. (HX 7) On June 18, 1987, an involuntary petition for bankruptcy was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Case No. 87-2131, "In re: Miami General Hospital". The Bankruptcy Order (HX authorizing the sale of the hospital found as follows: The hospital has been operating with losses of about $1,000,000 per month for sometime. The hospital was without funds to operate other than monies supplied from IMC (which itself had been placed in receivership) or use of cash collateral as to which First American Bank and Trust claimed a secured lien. On June 29, 1987, the HCCB was notified by Miami General Hospital that Miami General Hospital had been placed in receivership May 14, 1987, and that it was placed in bankruptcy June 18, 1987. (HX 8) On June 29, 1987, Miami General Hospital timely requested an extension of time to complete or provide the 1987 HCCB prior year report contending that the receivership and bankruptcy placed the hospital in a position where it was not able to complete its financial statements. In addition, the HCCB was notified by Miami General Hospital that the hospital did not have authority to retain an accounting firm to provide audited financial statements. (HX 8) (On July 24, 1987, the HCCB granted that extension request and advised the hospital that the report should be filed no later than 60 days following the Bankruptcy Court's approval of the hiring of an accounting firm to perform the audit.) (HX 13) In the meantime, on July 9, 1987, the assets of Miami General Hospital were sold by the trustee, free and clear of all claims, to First American Bank and Trust Company (FABT). (HX 10, 11) On August 4, 1987, the HCCB was notified by Miami General Hospital that the Bankruptcy Court had instructed the hospital's management team to file all reports and audits and that a copy of the HCCB's letter of July 24, 1987, would be saved for the new owners to keep on file. (HX 14) The letter of August 4, 1987, was not acknowledged by the HCCB. On or about August 8, 1987, an application for change of ownership of the hospital's license was received by HRS. That application reflected a change of ownership date of July 9, 1987, and indicated G. H. Corporation of Miami, c/o First American Bank and Trust - Legal Counsel, as owner of the hospital. (HX 12) On August 25, 1987, a bill of sale and trustee's deed, was executed from the trustee to G. H. Corporation of Miami, a Florida corporation. (HX 15, 16, 17) On August 25, 1987, license 2232 was issued by HRS to G. H. Corporation of Miami, d/b/a Miami General Hospital. (HX 18) Under HRS licensure laws and HCCB rules, a change of ownership occurred. On September 1, 1987, C & S Health Corp. submitted an application to HRS for change of ownership of the hospital reflecting a date of change of ownership of October 26, 1987. (HX 19) On September 4, 1987, a 1987 prior year report for Miami General Hospital was submitted by G. H. Corporation to the HCCB. (HX 20) The report was prepared using unaudited data. Receipt of that report was acknowledged September 16, 1987, by the HCCB (HX 21), but the report was deemed incomplete by the HCCB because it lacked audited financial statements, and a complete report, including audited financial statements, was requested. On September 28, 1987 the HCCB was notified that G. H. Corporation of Miami owned the land and buildings comprising Miami General Hospital as of August 25, 1987. (HX 22) The HCCB acknowledged this change of ownership November 17, 1987. (HX 23, 24) By special warranty deed dated December 5, 1987 (HX 25), ownership of the hospital was transferred from G. H. Corporation of Miami to Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd., which is the current owner of the facility. On December 7, 1987, Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd., filed a hospital license application with HRS. (HX 26) On December 8 and 10, 1987, the HCCB was notified that Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd., purchased Miami General Hospital on December 9, 1987 and in HX 28, that it desired to change its fiscal year to that of the calendar year. (HX 27, 28) On December 10, 1987, license 2277 was issued to Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd., d/b/a Miami General Hospital. (HX 29) On December 16, 1987, Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd., through counsel, advised the HCCB that, while wishing to comply with all applicable rules and regulations, literal compliance may be difficult due to the prior bankruptcy. The hospital also delayed changing its fiscal year. (HX 30) On December 23, 1987, the HCCB was provided with further explanations regarding the 1987 audited financial statements. By correspondence dated December 23, 1987, the HCCB was notified, "by way of further explanation, on May 14, 1987 Miami General Hospital was placed under State receivership by the Department of Insurance, and the Department operated the Hospital until it was sold to First American Bank and Trust (FABT) on June 18, 1987. FABT operated the hospital until it was sold to Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd. on December 9, 1987. The deed was recorded on December 11, 197. Because of the wrongdoing of the former owners that led to the State control, subsequent bankruptcy sale and criminal convictions of several of the former owners of the Hospital, the filing of audited financial statements is impossible. The new owners of the Hospital are totally unrelated to its former owners". 1/ (HX 31) On December 10, 1987, HRS license 2285 was issued to Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd. (HX 32) On March 3, 1988, the HCCB was notified that the hospital had been the subject of bankruptcy and that several of its former owners (IMC) had been prosecuted for matters relating to the operation of care services. (HX 35) aa. On April 14, 1988, Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd., through counsel, requested a waiver of the requirement to file an audited actual report for the hospital's fiscal year 1987, which, in this case, involves the period from about December 6, 1987, to December 31, 1987. (HX 36) bb. On May 13, 1988, the hospital objected to being assessed based on data supplied by Miami General Hospital for that hospital's 1986 fiscal year and notified the HCCB of the several changes of ownership of the hospital during the calendar year 1987. (HX 37) cc. On February 13, 1989, the HCCB was again requested to address assessments on Golden Glades Regional Medical Center. (HX 38) dd. On February 14, 1989, the HCCB was notified of approval by Medicare of the change in the hospital's fiscal year and the unsuccessful negotiations to sell the hospital to Jackson Memorial. (HX 39) ee. On March 14, 1989, HCCB certified to HRS that Golden Glades Regional Medical Center (hereafter, "Golden Glades") had not submitted a prior year actual report for fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, and therefore HCCB certified that the 1987 net revenue of Golden Glades was that shown by Miami General Hospital's most recent prior year report, which was for March 31, 1986. (HX 40) ff. On October 19, 1989, HCCB certified that Golden Glades had not submitted a prior year report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1987, but certified to HRS that for purposes of assessments, 1.5 percent of $40,101.189 (the net revenue in Miami General Hospital's March 31, 1986 report) was $601,518. (HX 50) gg. On November 17, 1989, HCCB notified HRS that Golden Glades Regional Medical Center had filed financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1988, however, the audit was not finalized. (HX 51) Net revenue in the financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1988, was $10,599,690. One and a half percent of that amount is $158,995. The notification of November 17 was not a certification by the HCCB. Golden Glades Regional Medical Center, Ltd., is a limited partnership. Its general partner is CNS. Collection and disbursement of Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund monies pursuant to Section 395.101(2), Florida Statutes, is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and not the Respondent. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was not a party to these proceedings. The Respondent is only responsible for calculating the amount of a hospital's Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund assessment and certifying the amount of the assessment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Respondent used the audited actual data for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, in calculating the Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund assessment of the Petitioner for the period of April 1, 1986, through March 31, 1987, and the period of April 1, 1987, through December 31, 1987. The Respondent is required by Section 395.101(2), Florida Statutes, to certify the Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund assessment of a hospital within six months after the end of the hospital's fiscal year. No exception is provided for changes in ownership of the hospital. A change in ownership does not affect the Respondent's responsibilities under Section 395.101(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued dismissing, with prejudice, the Petitioner's Petitions in these cases. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 31st day of May, 1990.
