Findings Of Fact Introduction Petitioner, Leesburg Regional Medical Center ("Leesburg"), is a 132-bed acute care private, not-for-profit hospital located at 600 East Dixie Highway, Leesburg, Florida. It offers a full range of general medical services. The hospital sits on land owned by the City of Leesburg. It is operated by the Leesburg hospital Association, an organization made up of individuals who reside within the Northwest Taxing District. By application dated August 13, 1982 petitioner sought a certificate of need (CON) from respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to construct the following described project: This project includes the addition of 36 medical/surgical beds and 7 SICU beds in existing space and the leasing of a CT scanner (replacement). The addition of the medical/surgical beds is a cost effective way to add needed capacity to the hospital. Twenty-four (24) beds on the third floor will be established in space vacated by surgery and ancillary departments moving into newly constructed space in the current renovation project. A significant portion of this area used to be an obstetric unit in the past; and therefore, is already set up for patient care. The 7 bed SICU unit will be set up on the second floor, also in space vacated as a result of the renovation project. Twelve additional beds will be available on the third and fourth floors as a result of changing single rooms into double rooms. No renovation will be necessary to convert these rooms into double rooms. It is also proposed to replace the current TechniCare head scanner with GE8800 body scanner. Based on the high demand for head and body scans and the excessive amount of maintenance problems and downtime associated with the current scanner, Leesburg Regional needs a reliable, state-of-the-art CT scanner. The cost of the project was broken down as follows: The total project cost is $1,535,000. The construction/renovation portion of the project (24 medical/surgical and 7 SICU beds) is $533,000. Equipment costs will be approximately $200,000. Architectural fees and project development costs total $52,000. The CT scanner will be leased at a monthly cost of $16,222 per month for 5 years. The purchase price of the scanner is $750,000 and that amount is included in the total project cost. The receipt of the application was acknowledged by HRS by letter dated August 27, 1982. That letter requested Leesburg to submit additional information no later than October 10, 1982 in order to cure certain omissions. Such additional information was submitted by Leesburg on October 5, 1982. On November 29, 1982, the administrator for HRS's office of health planning and development issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter advising Leesburg its request to replace a head CT scanner (whole body) at a cost of $750,000 had been approved, but that the remainder of the application had been denied. The basis for the denial was as follows: There are currently 493 medical/surgical beds in the Lake/Sumter sub-district of HSA II. Based upon the HSP for HSA II, there was an actual utilization ratio of existing beds equivalent to 2.98/1,000 population. When this utilization ratio is applied to the 1987 projected population of 156,140 for Lake/Sumter counties, there is a need for 465 medical/surgical beds by 1987. Thus, there is an excess of 28 medical/surgical beds in the Lake/Sumter sub-district currently. This action prompted the instant proceeding. At the same time Leesburg's application was being partially denied, an application for a CON by intervenor-respondent, Lake Community Hospital (Lake), was being approved. That proposal involved an outlay of 4.1 million dollars and was generally described in the application as follows: The proposed project includes the renovations and upgrading of patient care areas. This will include improving the hospital's occupancy and staffing efficiencies by reducing Med-Surg Unit-A to 34 beds and eliminating all 3-bed wards. Also reducing Med-Surg Units B and C to 34 beds each and eliminating all 3-bed wards. This will necessitate the construction of a third floor on the A wing to house the present beds in private and semi-private rooms for a total of 34 beds. There is also an immediate need to develop back-to-back six bed ICU and a six-bed CCU for shared support services. This is being done to fulfill JCAH requirements and upgrade patient care by disease entity, patient and M.D. requests. Another need that is presented for consideration is the upgrading of Administrative areas to include a conference room and more Administrative and Business office space. However, the merits of HRS's decision on Lake's application are not at issue in this proceeding. In addition to Lake, there are two other hospitals located in Lake County which provide acute and general hospital service. They are South Lake Memorial Hospital, a 68-bed tax district facility in Clermont, Florida, and Waterman Memorial Hospital, which operates a 154-bed private, not-for-profit facility in Eustis, Florida. There are no hospitals in Sumter County, which lies adjacent to Lake County, and which also shares a subdistrict with that county. The facilities of Lake and Leesburg are less than two miles apart while the Waterman facility is approximately 12 to 14 miles away. South Lake Memorial is around 25 miles from petitioner's facility. Therefore, all three are no more than a 30 minute drive from Leesburg's facility. At the present time, there are 515 acute care beds licensed for Lake County. Of these, 493 are medical/surgical beds and 22 are obstetrical beds. None are designated as pediatric beds. The Proposed Rules Rules 10-16.001 through 10-16.012, Florida Administrative Code, were first noticed by HRS in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 12, 1983. Notices of changes in these rules were published on September 23, 1983. Thereafter, they were filed with the Department of State on September 26, 1983 and became effective on October 16, 1983. Under new Rule 10-16.004 (1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, subdistrict 7 of district 3 consists of Lake and Sumter Counties. The rule also identifies a total acute care bed need for subdistrict 7 of 523 beds. When the final hearing was held, and evidence heard in this matter, the rules were merely recommendations of the various local health councils forwarded to HRS on June 27, 1983 for its consideration. They had not been adopted or even proposed for adoption at that point in time. Petitioner's Case In health care planning it is appropriate to use five year planning horizons with an overall occupancy rate of 80 percent. In this regard, Leesburg has sought to ascertain the projected acute care bed need in Lake County for the year 1988. Through various witnesses, it has projected this need using three different methodologies. The first methodology used by Leesburg may be characterized as the subdistrict need theory methodology. It employs the "guidelines for hospital care" adopted by the District III Local Health Council on June 27, 1983 and forwarded to HRS for promulgation as formal rules. Such suggestions were ultimately adopted by HRS as a part of Chapter 10-16 effective October 16, 1983. Under this approach, the overall acute care bed need for the entire sixteen county District III was found to be 44 additional beds in the year 1988 while the need within Subdistrict VII (Lake and Sumter Counties) was eight additional beds. 2/ The second approach utilized by Leesburg is the peak occupancy theory methodology. It is based upon the seasonal fluctuation in a hospital's occupancy rates, and used Leesburg's peak season bed need during the months of February and March to project future need. Instead of using the state suggested occupancy rate standard of 80 percent, the sponsoring witness used an 85 percent occupancy rate which produced distorted results. Under this approach, Leesburg calculated a need of 43 additional beds in 1988 in Subdistrict VII. However, this approach is inconsistent with the state-adopted methodology in Rule 10- 5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code, and used assumptions not contained in the rule. It also ignores the fact that HRS's rule already gives appropriate consideration to peak demand in determining bed need. The final methodology employed by Leesburg was characterized by Leesburg as the "alternative need methodology based on state need methodology" and was predicated upon the HRS adopted bed need approach in Rule 10-5.11(23) with certain variations. First, Leesburg made non-rule assumptions as to the inflow and outflow of patients. Secondly, it substituted the population by age group for Lake and Sumter Counties for the District population. With these variations, the methodology produced an acute care bed need of 103 additional beds within Lake and Sumter Counties. However, this calculation is inconsistent with the applicable HRS rule, makes assumptions not authorized under the rule, and is accordingly not recognized by HRS as a proper methodology. Leesburg experienced occupancy rates of 91 percent, 80 percent and 73 percent for the months of January, February and March, 1981, respectively. These rates changed to 86 percent, 95 percent and 98 percent during the same period in 1982, and in 1983 they increased to 101.6 percent, 100.1 percent and 95.1 percent. Leesburg's health service area is primarily Lake and Sumter Counties. This is established by the fact that 94.4 percent and 93.9 percent of its admissions in 1980 and 1981, respectively, were from Lake and Sumter Counties. Although South Lake Memorial and Waterman Memorial are acute care facilities, they do not compete with Leesburg for patients. The staff doctors of the three are not the same, and there is very little crossover, if any, of patients between Leesburg and the other two facilities. However, Lake and Leesburg serve the same patient base, and in 1982 more than 70 percent of their patients came from Lake County. The two compete with one another, and have comparable facilities. Leesburg has an established, well-publicized program for providing medical care to indigents. In this regard, it is a recipient of federal funds for such care, and, unlike Lake, accounts for such care by separate entry on its books. The evidence establishes that Leesburg has the ability to finance the proposed renovation. HRS's Case HRS's testimony was predicated on the assumption that Rule 10-16.004 was not in effect and had no application to this proceeding. Using the bed need methodology enunciated in Rule 10-5.11(23), its expert concluded the overall bed need for the entire District III to be 26 additional beds by the year 1988. This calculation was based upon and is consistent with the formula in the rule. Because there was no existing rule at the time of the final hearing concerning subdistrict need, the witness had no way to determine the bed need, if any, within Subdistrict VII alone. Lake's Case Lake is a 162-bed private for profit acute care facility owned by U.S. Health Corporation. It is located at 700 North Palmetto, Leesburg, Florida. Lake was recently granted a CON which authorized a 4.1 million dollar renovation project. After the renovation is completed all existing three-bed wards will be eliminated. These will be replaced with private and semi-private rooms with no change in overall bed capacity. This will improve the facility's patient utilization rate. The expansion program is currently underway. Like Leesburg, the expert from Lake utilized a methodology different from that adopted for use by HRS. Under this approach, the expert determined total admissions projected for the population, applied an average length of stay to that figure, and arrived at a projected patient day total for each hospital. That figure was then divided by bed complement and 365 days to arrive at a 1988 occupancy percentage. For Subdistrict VII, the 1988 occupancy percentage was 78.2, which, according to the expert, indicated a zero acute care bed need for that year. Lake also presented the testimony of the HRS administrator of the office of community affairs, an expert in health care planning. He corroborated the testimony of HRS's expert witness and concluded that only 26 additional acute care beds would be needed district-wide by the year 1988. This result was arrived at after using the state-adopted formula for determining bed need. During 1981, Lake's actual total dollar write-off for bad debt was around $700,000. This amount includes an undisclosed amount for charity or uncompensated care for indigent patients. Unlike Leesburg, Lake receives no federal funds for charity cases. Therefore, it has no specific accounting entry on its books for charity or indigent care. Although Leesburg rendered $276,484 in charity/uncompensated care during 1981, it is impossible to determine which facility rendered the most services for indigents due to the manner in which Lake maintains its books and records. In any event, there is no evidence that indigents in the Subdistrict have been denied access to hospital care at Lake or any other facility within the county. Lake opines that it will loose 2.6 million dollars in net revenues in the event the application is granted. If true, this in turn would cause an increase in patient charges and a falling behind in technological advances. For the year 1981, the average percent occupancy based on licensed beds for Leesburg, Lake, South Lake Memorial and Waterman Memorial was as follows: 71.5 percent, 58.7 percent, 63.8 percent and 65.7 percent. The highest utilization occurred in January (81 percent) while the low was in August (58 percent). In 1982, the utilization rate during the peak months for all four facilities was 78 percent. This figure dropped to 66.5 percent for the entire year. Therefore, there is ample excess capacity within the County even during the peak demand months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Leesburg Regional Medical Center for a certificate of need to add 43 acute care beds, and renovate certain areas of its facility to accommodate this addition, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has standing to initiate the instant challenge to the preliminary determination to issue CON 6254 to Respondent Palms West Hospital, Inc.? If so, whether CON 6254 should be granted?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Palms West Hospital and Wellington Regional Medical Center are general acute care hospitals located five miles apart in western Palm Beach County, Florida (HRS District 9). Due to their proximity to one another, the two hospitals draw from essentially the same patient pool and, as a result, are close competitors. Early on, Wellington was well ahead of Palms West in terms of the number of patient days generated by the facility. Palms West, however, has since surpassed Wellington and now enjoys a slight edge over its competitor in this performance category. Wellington is licensed to operate a total of 120 beds. One-hundred and four of these licensed beds are acute care beds. The remainder are substance abuse beds. Of Wellington's 104 licensed acute care beds, approximately 45 or 46 are staffed. Wellington currently operates at 53% of its licensed total bed capacity and 49% of its licensed acute care bed capacity. During this past calendar year, Wellington has consistently operated at between 50 to 55% of its licensed total bed capacity. Palms West is now, and has been at all times material hereto, licensed to operate 117 acute care beds at its facility in District 9. At no time has Palms West been subject to a license revocation proceeding, nor has it filed any documents with HRS requesting a reduction in its licensed bed capacity. 1/ Palms West's initial license (License No. 1869) was issued on February 17, 1986. The license was effective February 14, 1986, and expired February 13, 1988. Prior to the issuance of License No. 1869, Palms West received a certificate of need (CON 1845) for 117 acute care beds in District 9. Palms West is currently operating under License No. 2701. License No. 2701 was issued on September 1, 1989, with an effective date of September 17, 1989, and an expiration date of September 16, 1991. The license provides, in pertinent part, that Palms West "is authorized to operate a Class I General hospital with 117 Acute beds." License No. 2701 was issued pursuant to a licensure renewal application submitted by Palms West. The application, which had been prepared in May, 1989, made reference to a "renovation" "[b]uilding program . . . in progress" at Palms West with an "[a]nticipated completion date [of] 8/89," but did not provide any additional information regarding the project. The "renovation" project referenced in the application involved the third and fourth floors of the hospital. Space on these floors was being converted to house an eight-bed Labor Delivery Recovery Program. By letter dated February 1, 1989, Palms West, through its Administrator, Paul Pugh, had requested a certificate of need exemption from HRS to initiate this obstetric program at an estimated cost of $1.2 million. Sharon Gordon-Girvin, the then administrator of HRS's Office of Community Health Services and Facilities, sent Pugh a letter, dated February 9, 1989, granting the requested exemption. Girvin explained in the letter that the exemption was being granted pursuant to Section 381.706(3)(f), Florida Statutes, which, she noted, "eliminates Certificate of Need review for initiation or expansion of obstetric services, provided that the licensed bed capacity 2/ does not increase." She also stated in the letter, among other things, that Palms West's "architectural plans [had to] be approved by the Office of Licensure and Certification, Plans and Construction, before construction is undertaken [to] assure conformance with licensure standards." In her letter, Girvin did not purport to authorize a decrease in Palms West's licensed bed capacity. Palms West's architectural plans were approved by Plans and Construction and work on the renovation project commenced. The project's progress was monitored by Plans and Construction. In or around August, 1989, the project was completed. The completed eight-bed obstetric unit occupied space that previously had been used to house 30 general acute care beds. As a result of the project, Palms West no longer had the space necessary to accommodate its licensed complement of 117 acute care beds. It had the physical capacity (hereinafter referred to as "constructed bed capacity") to house only 95 of its 117 licensed beds. Palms West, in undertaking this project, never intended to reduce the number of licensed beds at the facility. While it did not specifically so state in its exemption request, it had every intention of seeking authorization, "sometime soon after the [obstetric] unit was up and going," to expand its facility to accommodate the 22 licensed beds taken out of service as a result of the project. On August 18, 1989, Plans and Construction conducted an inspection of the completed project. The inspection revealed that the project had "permanently reduced" the constructed bed capacity of the facility from 117 to 95 beds. Nonetheless, Plans and Construction found the facility "to be in substantial compliance with the requirements of the licensure regulations." Accordingly, the project was approved for patient care. The first obstetric patient was admitted to the hospital on August 21, 1989. On November 14, 1989, Ira Wagner, an Architect Supervisor in Plans and Construction, sent the following letter to Palms West: 3/ On August 18, 1989 the Plans and Construction Section of the Office of Regulation and Health Facilities ran a final construction survey in your new obstetrical services project. Based on the survey results, we are able to release the area for occupancy. One requirement for the close-out documenta- tion for this type survey is a bed count iden- tifying the previous and new bed capacity. In order for this office to further clarify the information available during the referenced survey, this office would appreciate an in-depth bed count prepared by the facility and forwarded to us. The bed count format should include both the constructed bed count and the licensed capacity (not always the same) both prior and subsequent to this project. Further, the format should be on a floor and bed by bed designation basis. In response to this request, Pugh, on behalf of Palms West, sent Wagner a letter dated December 18, 1989. In his letter, Pugh provided a floor by floor "bed count" showing a total of "117 beds" "[p]rior to 8/18/89" and a total of "95 beds" "[s]ubsequent to 8/18/89" and "as of December, 1989." At Wagner's behest, Pugh sent Wagner a second letter to clarify and confirm the "bed count" figures given in the December 18, 1989, letter. This second letter, which was dated January 1, 1990, contained "bed count" information identical to that which had been reported in Pugh's first letter to Wagner. In neither letter did Pugh indicate whether the pre-8/18/89 and post-8/18/89 "bed counts" reflected licensed bed capacity or constructed bed capacity, or both. It was Pugh's unstated intention, however, to convey in these letters information regarding only the facility's constructed bed capacity. Wagner and Pugh communicated not only in writing, but by telephone as well. During one such telephone conversation, Wagner suggested that Pugh contact Girvin to seek guidance regarding what, if anything, the hospital should do now that its constructed bed capacity had been reduced to 95. Thereafter, Pugh followed Wagner's suggestion and telephoned Girvin. During their telephone conversation, Pugh and Girvin discussed the various alternative courses of action that were available to Palms West given the discrepancy between its licensed bed capacity (117) and its constructed bed capacity (95). Following their conversation, Girvin sent Pugh the following letter, dated January 18, 1990: I enjoyed talking with you by phone on Tuesday, January 9. Our conversation involved various options you have for complying with the licensure requirement that you have the capability for bringing all licensed beds into service within a 24 hour period. At the present time, the obstetrical program utilized existing space within the hospital for expan- sion. The effect was that 22 medical or surgical beds cannot be put into service within the time prescribed by law. Any change in licensed bed capacity is sub- ject to a certificate of need. (Reference Section 381.706(1)(e), F.S.) Therefore, Palms West has no authority to change its licensed bed capacity. Should a licensure inspection occur, the hospital may be found in violation if the 22 beds cannot be put into service. You have four options from which to choose: File a certificate of need application in the next hospital batch (letter of intent due no later than 5:00 p.m. local time on February 26, 1990) to reduce your licensed capacity by 22 beds; File a certificate of need application for a capital expenditure (expedited review) to seek authorization to construct capacity to house the 22 beds (due on or before May 15, 1990); File a letter seeking determination of reviewability if the proposed capital expend- iture to construct the capacity to house the 22 beds is below $1 million; or Do nothing to increase capability which would make the department file an administra- tive complaint to revoke the 22 beds. Based upon our discussion at the time, you found either option 2 or 3 to be the most appropriate one for you. It is similar to the situation at Doctor's Hospital in Coral Gables. I'm enclosing a copy of the corre- spondence between Doctor's Hospital and me. Option 3 would only be applicable if the esti- mated cost of constructing the 22 beds could be accomplished below the $1 million threshold. In my experience, 22 beds including the atten- dant and ancillary space and the equipment exceeds $1 million (especially if any land acquisition is involved.) The situation requires expeditious attention to the matter because the hospital may be found to be in violation. Therefore, I would like to work with you to avoid an adversarial relationship. To that end, the same agreement I reached with Doctor's Hospital is appropriate for Palms West. Please respond in writing by January 31 as to which of the options you will pursue. With any or all of them, I will be glad to discuss them with you or your representative. You may reach me at (904) 488-8673. In declining to take immediate action to institute disciplinary proceedings and instead providing Palms West the opportunity to bring its licensed bed capacity 4/ and constructed bed capacity into balance, HRS was following established non-rule policy and practice. 5/ Because the imbalance was the product of a renovation project that had been undertaken and completed with HRS approval and under its supervision, HRS believed that such a "wait and see" approach was particularly appropriate in the instant case. By letter dated February 2, 1990, Pugh informed Girvin that Palms West intended to pursue the second of the four options presented by Girvin in her January 18, 1990, letter. Pugh's letter read as follows: Thank you for your letter of January 18, 1989 [sic], regarding licensure requirements for Palms West Hospital. I appreciated the infor- mation relative to regulations compliance and the options my facility has at this time to maintain our current licensed capacity at 117 acute care beds. As you know, our recent obstetrical construc- tion project utilized existing space within the hospital for expansion. The effect was that 22 acute care . . . beds cannot presently be placed into service within the time [24 hours] prescribed by law. Accordingly, Palms West Hospital agrees to file a Certifi- cate of Need application for a capital expend- iture (expedited review) to seek authorization to construct capacity to house 22 beds. We agree to file the CON application on or before May 15, 1990. Please call or write my office for clarifica- tion, if necessary. I look forward to confir- mation of our request. Again, my apologies for the delay in our response. Thank you for your input and advice. A very short time after making its decision to exercise this option, Palms West hired a health planning consultant to assist it in preparing the certificate of need application. As promised, on May 11, 1990, Palms West filed the certificate of need application. The application was accompanied by a transmittal letter addressed to Girvin. The letter, which was signed by Palms West's health planning consultant, read as follows: Enclosed is the original copy of an applica- tion for Certificate of Need for the construc- tion of a 23-bed wing of acute care beds to replace a like number of licensed beds which are out of service at Palms West Hospital, Loxahatchee. This application is filed pursuant to an agreement between your office and Mr. Mike Pugh, administrator of the hospital. The filing fee of $10,000 is being submitted under separate cover on May 15, 1990 for attachment to this document, under agreement between Mr. Pugh and your staff. We look forward to working with you on the review of this document. Please contact me at this office for additional information you may need. Contrary to the statement made in the letter, only 22, not 23, of Palms West's licensed acute care beds were "out of service." One of the 23 licensed beds to be housed in the proposed new wing was to be relocated from an area of the existing facility that Palms West intended to convert into a telemetry unit. That bed was at the time of the filing of the application, and still is, operational. In Section I of the application, the project Palms West sought permission to undertake was described as follows: Replacement of existing licensed beds by construction of new bed wing on existing third floor of hospital. Section II of the application contained the following, more detailed description of the proposed project and its purpose: In 1989, in response to rapid service area growth and to local requests for high quality obstetrical service, the hospital opened an eight (8) bed LDRP obstetrical unit on its third floor. This unit and its support areas required conversion or remodeling of twenty-six (26) acute care bed spaces on the third floor. It also required use of another four (4) acute care bed spaces on the second floor for mechan- ical support systems for the C-section room in the third floor obstetrical unit. This reduced available bed space by twenty-two (22) beds. In early 1990, the hospital committed to con- vert one (1) bed space on the second floor to house telemetry equipment for the adjacent nursing unit. When this equipment is placed in service, it will reduce available bed space by an additional bed. As a result, Palms West Hospital will have temporarily lost the use of twenty-three (23) net bed spaces, or some 20% of its licensed bed capacity, in the development of expanded and improved services for patients of its service area. This application proposes to restore the hospital's available bed capacity to its current licensed bed level of one hundred seventeen (117) acute care beds. No addi- tional licensed beds or new services are proposed. The restoration of capacity will be accomplished through construction of a twenty-three (23) bed wing on the second floor of the hospital, containing seven private and eight semiprivate patient rooms. Construction should commence by May of 1991 and be completed by the end of September 1991. The estimated cost of the project is $1,560,888. All required funds will be provided by a cash grant from the applicant's parent company, so that the project itself will not adversely impact the hospital's rates and charges. The project is required if the hospital is to maintain the licensed capacity for which it received CON approval in 1984. Currently only ninety-four bed spaces can be made available for patient occupancy within 24 hours notice. In a high growth service area such as West Palm Beach County, it is not desirable for existing bed resources to be diminished. It is also not appropriate for the hospital to be penalized by reduction in licensure for the development of exempt and appropriate services which improve the quality of care and access to care in its service area. For these and other reasons, the administra- tion of Palms West Hospital and Sharon M. Gordon-Girvin of the Office of Community Health Services and Facilities agreed in early 1990 that the hospital should file this expedited CON proposal to restore its functional bed capacity to the original licensed level. Palms West's application was assigned CON Application No. 6254. In accordance with long-standing HRS non-rule policy and practice, the project proposed in the application was deemed to be a capital expenditure project reviewable only pursuant to subsection (1)(c) of Section 381.706, Florida Statutes, and, as such, it was subjected, not to a full batched comparative review, but to an expedited review that was applicant specific in nature. 6/ Full batched comparative review was considered inappropriate because Palms West was proposing to merely add space to its existing facility in order to accommodate licensed beds for which it had already successfully competed. Inasmuch as they were approved and licensed, these beds, under the bed need methodology established by HRS rule, were already included in the existing acute care bed inventory utilized to determine the number of additional beds, if any, needed in District 9 to meet projected demand (fixed need pool). 7/ Had Palms West's application been subjected to full batched comparative review, it would have been evaluated against this fixed need pool. In declining to subject the application to full batched comparative review, HRS also took into consideration that the bed space Palms West sought to restore had been lost as a result of the hospital's initiation of obstetric services. In the view of the agency, to subject such restoration projects to full batched comparative review would tend to discourage the development and expansion of obstetric programs in the state and therefore run counter to, what it perceived to be, the Legislature's intent in exempting obstetric services projects from certificate-of-need review. On August 17, 1990, following this expedited review of Palms West's application, HRS published a State Agency Action Report in which it announced its preliminary determination to issue the certificate of need requested in CON Application No. 6254.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order (1) dismissing, for lack of standing, the petition filed by Petitioner in the instant case, and (2) issuing CON 6254 to Palms West. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of July, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 3rd day of July, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documents filed herein and the stipulations and arguments of counsel at the telephonic hearing, the following Findings of Fact are determined: Respondent, DePoo Memorial Doctor's Hospital (DEPOO) applied for a Certificate of Need for the establishment of a 15-bed short-term psychiatric service. CON #3248 was granted DEPOO for 15 short-term psychiatric beds on June 23, 1984, and noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly of July 6, 1984. Petitioner Florida Keys Memorial Hospital (FKM) alleges issuance of CON #3248 to DEPOO affects their substantial interests. FKM admits that it did not, prior to receipt by DHRS of the DEPOO proposal being reviewed, formally indicate an intention to provide such similar services in the future, i.e. short-term psychiatric beds. FKM is an established acute care hospital which, among other obvious services of an acute care facility, currently provides psychiatric care as patients are admitted for that purpose or, if a patient is admitted for another purpose, FKM may provide additional care for a psychiatric condition tangential to the purpose or treatment for which that patient is initially admitted. No beds are allocated specifically for short-term psychiatric care at FKM. Indeed, FKM has no license to perform the health care services of a short- term psychiatric hospital and thus no short-term psychiatric beds. Its performance of any psychiatric services is, essentially, ad hoc and the extent thereof is fully described in Paragraph 4, above. It was stipulated among the parties that there was no licensed short- germ psychiatric facility in the Key West area of Monroe County, Florida at the time DEPOO's application for a CON for a 15 bed short-term psychiatric facility was reviewed; that FKM was granted a prior CON for short-term psychiatric beds, which CON of FKN had expired without being implemented by FKM prior to the agency's review of DEPOO's application; and that currently there still is no facility licensed in the Key West area of Monroe County for short-term psychiatric care. Rule 10-5.11(25), F.A.C. provides a methodology for short-term psychiatric bed need determination which is separate and distinct from that bed need methodology applicable to FKM as an acute care hospital. See Rule 10- 5.11(23), F.A.C. Further, application for acute care CONs and short-term psychiatric CONs are reviewed separately by DHRS. Since the services offered by FKM [acute care] and by those proposed by DEPOD [short-term psychiatric] are the subject of separate and distinct need methodologies, they are not "similar."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the petition for Formal Hearing be dismissed with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire 318 North Calhoun Street P. O. Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3300 Richard C. Klugh, Jr., Esquire Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the Agency For Health Care Administration (the "Agency") concerning Certificate of Need ("CON") Application No. 10131 filed by The Shores Behavioral Hospital, LLC (hereinafter “The Shores”) to establish a 60-bed adult psychiatric hospital and CON Application No. 10132 The entity is a limited liability company according to the Division of Corporations. Filed March 14, 2012 2:40 PM Division of Administrative Hearings to establish a 12-bed substance abuse program in addition to the 60 adult psychiatric beds pursuant to CON application No. 10131. The Agency preliminarily approved CON Application No. 10131 and preliminarily denied CON Application No. 10132. South Broward Hospital District d/b/a Memorial Regional Hospital (hereinafter “Memorial”) thereafter filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the Agency’s preliminary approval of CON 10131, which the Agency Clerk forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”). The Shores thereafter filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to challenge the Agency’s preliminary denial of CON 10132, which the Agency Clerk forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (‘DOAH”). Upon receipt at DOAH, Memorial, CON 10131, was assigned DOAH Case No. 12-0424CON and The Shores, CON 10132, was assigned DOAH Case No. 12-0427CON. On February 16, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order of Consolidation consolidating both cases. On February 24, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction based on _ the _ parties’ representation they had reached a settlement. . The parties have entered into the attached Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 1). It is therefore ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Agency will approve and issue CON 10131 and CON 10132 with the conditions: a. Approval of CON Application 10131 to establish a Class III specialty hospital with 60 adult psychiatric beds is concurrent with approval of the co-batched CON Application 10132 to establish a 12-bed adult substance abuse program in addition to the 60 adult psychiatric beds in one single hospital facility. b. Concurrent to the licensure and certification of 60 adult inpatient psychiatric beds, 12 adult substance abuse beds and 30 adolescent residential treatment (DCF) beds at The Shores, all 72 hospital beds and 30 adolescent residential beds at Atlantic Shores Hospital will be delicensed. c. The Shores will become a designated Baker Act receiving facility upon licensure and certification. d. The location of the hospital approved pursuant to CONs 10131 and 10132 will not be south of Los Olas Boulevard and The Shores agrees that it will not seek any modification of the CONs to locate the hospital farther south than Davie Boulevard (County Road 736). 3. Each party shall be responsible its own costs and fees. 4. The above-styled cases are hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this 2. day of Meaich~ , 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELIZABETH DEK, Secretary AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not a CON to construct a 60-bed short-term psychiatric hospital in District XI should be issued to Florida Medical Center (FMC).
Findings Of Fact FMC seeks a CON for a 60-bed free-standing psychiatric facility to be located in the Key Largo area of Monroe County in HRS District XI. FMC intends to provide 6.25 percent of its patient days at no charge to indigent patients. It further intends to provide another 6.25 percent of its patient days to HRS' clients and Baker Act patients at 50 percent of its projected charge, or $200 per day. (FMC Exhibit 2, Table 7). FMC proposes to build this facility at a cost of $6,060,000. Dr. Richard Matthews, Ph.D., has been executive director of the Guidance Clinic of the Upper Keys since 1973 and is a clinical psychologist. He is responsible for the overall administration and supervision of mental health, alcohol, drug abuse and out-patient services provided under contract with HRS. Dr. Matthews was qualified as an expert in clinical psychology and the mental health delivery health system in Monroe County. (FMC Exhibit 13). There are three guidance clinics in Monroe County, one each for the upper, lower and middle Keys. HRS contracts through each of these clinics to provide mental health care for its clients. There are no community mental health centers in Monroe County and the clinics are the sole means of delivering mental health care on behalf of HRS' clients within the county. Currently, the guidance clinic of the upper Keys places its in- patients in Harbor View Hospital in Dade County at a cost of $236 per day. Neither Harbor View nor any other hospital provides free days to any of the guidance clinics for in-patient psychiatric care. (FMC Exhibit 13, P. 9) Jackson Memorial Hospital does not accept indigent or charity psychiatric patients from Monroe County. There have been occasions where patients without resources have been unable to be hospitalized although hospitalization was indicated. The middle Keys has a crisis hospitalization unit with a limited number of beds. Patients needing hospitalization longer than three days must be transferred to Harbor View or some other facility in the District. The 15 beds at Depoo Hospital in Key West are not readily accessible to residents of the upper Keys. Residents needing psychiatric services usually go to hospitals in Dade County. Coral Reef Hospital, the nearest psychiatric facility to Petitioner's proposed facility, has in the past refused to negotiate a discounted rate with the guidance clinic. Dr. Matthews, on one occasion, sent a patient to Coral Reef who was refused treatment. Currently, no psychiatrist practices in Key Largo because there are no psychiatric beds to which a psychiatrist could admit patients. The discounted rate of $200 per day quoted by FMC is some $36 per day less than the guidance clinic currently pays to providers for referrals of its patients for psychiatric care. Additionally, the 6.25 percent of free care that Petitioner proposes is greater than the free care which the guidance clinic currently receives from any facility since no facility presently gives any free care to the clinic. The guidance clinic supports Petitioner's CON application and will contract with Petitioner who provides services for in-patients. Grant Center is a long-term 140-bed psychiatric hospital specializing in the treatment of children and adolescents. It is the nearest facility to Petitioner's proposed facility. Grant Center has agreed to refer adult patients to Petitioner. Grant Center treats 2-3 adults a month who need psychiatric care. (FMC Exhibit 14). There is one hospital providing psychiatric care in Dade County which was surveyed by the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) in March, 1988. Currently, a third party insurance carrier no longer utilizes Grant Center because of price. If a facility has prices which carriers consider too expensive, utilization will go down. (FMC Exhibit 14, P. 7). Grant Center currently contracts with HRS to provide its clients care at a rate of approximately $350 per day, a rate one half of Grant Center's normal rate. Jackson Memorial is the only Dade County hospital which will treat an indigent psychiatric patient. Grant Center intends to assist Petitioner with staffing or programmatic needs. It has 80-100 professional staff, most of whom live in close proximity to Key Largo. Robert L. Newman, C.P.A., is the chief financial officer at FMC. He testified, by deposition, as an expert in hospital accounting and finance. Newman analyzed the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) reports for each hospital in District XI which provides psychiatric care. There is no free standing psychiatric hospital in the District which reports any indigent or uncompensated care. Among area acute care hospitals which have psychiatric units, Miami Jackson rendered 38.89 percent indigent care, Miami Children's rendered 6.5 percent indigent care, and no other facility reported that it rendered more than 1.75 percent indigent care. (FMC see Exhibit 11, disposition exhibit 1). Jackson provides no free care to Monroe County residents and Miami Children's care is limited to treating children while Petitioner is seeking adult beds. Jayne Coraggio testified (by deposition) as an expert in psychiatric staffing and hiring. She is currently Petitioner's director of behavioral sciences. The ideal patient to staff ratio is 4 to 5 patients per day per professional staff member. During the evening shift, the ideal patient ratio per professional staff member is 7 to 8 patients. (FMC Exhibit 12, PP. 6-7). Petitioner's facility is adequately staffed based on the above ratios. FMC is considered overstaffed in the psychiatric unit by some of the other area hospitals since they do not staff as heavily as does Petitioner. Lower staffing ratios can affect quality of care since patients and their families would not receive as much therapy. Family therapy is important because the family needs to know about changes in the patient in order to make corrective adjustments. The family that is required to travel in excess of 45 minutes or more one way is less likely to be involved in family therapy. Islara Souto was the HRS primary reviewer who prepared the state agency action report (SAAR) for Petitioner's CON application. (FMC Exhibit 15). District 11 has subdivided into five subdistricts for psychiatric beds. Florida is deinstitutionalizing patients from its mental hospitals. To the extent that private psychiatric hospitals do not accept nonpaying patients, their existence will not solve the problem of caring for such patients. Souto acknowledged that the local health councils conversion policy discriminates against subdistrict 5 because there are so few acute care beds in the subdistrict. In fact, the conversion policy actually exacerbates the maldistribution of beds in the district. (FMC 15, page 26). The psychiatric facility nearest the proposed site (Coral Reef), had an occupancy of 90.3 percent. Souto utilized a document entitled Florida Primary Health Care Need Indicators, February 1, 1986, and determined that Monroe County has not been designated as a health manpower shortage area, nor a medically underserved area. This information is relied upon by health planners to determine the availability of health manpower in an area. This report refers both to physicians and R.N.'s. The average adult per diem for free-standing hospitals in District 11 range from $430 at Charter to just over $500 at Harbor View. Although districts have established subdistricts for psychiatric beds, no psychiatric bed subdistrict in any district has been promulgated by HRS as a rule. The access standard that is relevant to this proceeding is a 45-minute travel standard contained in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.G. That standard states: G. Access Standard. Short-term inpatient hospital psychiatric services should be available within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions for at least 90 percent of this service area's population. Here, the standard refers to the service area which is determined to be an area different than a service district. Applying the travel time standard on a service area basis makes the most sense since the subdistrict is established by the local health council and not the applicant. Analyzing this access standard on a sub-district level, 90% of the sub-districts population is not within 45 minutes of any facility anywhere in sub-district V since the sub-district is more than two hours long by ordinary travel and the population is split two-thirds in lower Dade County and one-third in Monroe County, the bulk of which is in Key West. (FMC Exhibit 17). Therefore, a facility located on either end of this sub-district is not readily accessible by the applicable travel standards to citizens at the other end of the sub-district. This access standard must however be measured and considered with the needs for psychiatric services of the kind Petitioner is proposing to provide. Petitioner has not presented any access surveys or assessments of the caliber relied upon by the Department in the past. Petitioner's facility which would be located in the Key Largo area will no doubt provide better geographic accessibility to residents of District XI who live in the Key Largo area. HRS has in the past used a sub-district analysis to determine geographic accessibility for psychiatric beds even though it has not promulgated a rule for sub-districts for psychiatric beds. See, for example, Psychiatric Hospital of Florida vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Pasco Psychiatric Center, DOAH Case No. 85-0780. Likewise, the Department has approved the conversion of acute-care beds to psychiatric beds even though it found that there was a surplus of psychiatric beds in the district. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). The Department has in the past used a geographic access analysis to approve psychiatric beds in District XI and has used the sub- district analysis or a time travel analysis in its review of Cedars, Coral Reef, Depoo (for psychiatric beds) and the Glenbiegh case (for long term substance abuse). The bed need calculations for the January, 1992 planning horizon shows a surplus of 180 short-term in-patient psychiatric beds. (HRS Exhibit 2). The occupancy level for short-term psychiatric beds in the district is below 70%. (HRS Exhibit 2, pages 11-12). Additionally, the occupancy standards of the local and state health plan, of which the department is required to review CON applications, have not been met in this instance. (HRS Exhibit 2, Pages 6-7). Petitioner has not submitted any documentation to HRS regarding special circumstances need. Petitioner's proposal at final hearing for a staff referral agreement with another local hospital was not contained in the CON application filed with HRS. (FMC Exhibit 14, pages 11-12). Although Petitioner has alluded to some unspecified access problem for residents in the Florida Keys, Petitioner has not documented a real access problem and certainly not a demonstration of inaccessibility under the rule access standard. (Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.g.)(HRS Exhibit 2, pages 14-15). Although the proposed project would increase availability and access for underserved groups in the district, the percentage of total patient days for "indigents" is not substantial and certainly not to the point to warrant deviation from the usual access criteria. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need to build a 60-bed free- standing psychiatric hospital in District XI be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of January, 1989.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Palm Beach-Martin County Medical Center, Inc.'s ("PBMC"), application for a certificate of need ("CON") to build a 60-bed inpatient rehabilitation hospital in Palm Beach County, Florida, should be approved, or denied (as proposed by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") in preliminary action.). By petition filed with HRS on August 1, 1984, PBMC invoked Section 120.57(1) remedies to contest DHRS' preliminary denial of its application for a CON authorizing establishment of an inpatient rehabilitation hospital at its medical campus in Jupiter, Florida, by converting 60 existing skilled nursing beds to comprehensive medical rehabilitation inpatient beds. On August 14, 1984, HRS forwarded this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer to conduct the requested proceedings. Petitions to intervene for the purpose of contesting issuance of a CON to PBMC were subsequently filed by NME Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Delray Rehabilitative Institute, Rehab Hospital Services Corporation, and University Rehabilitation Services, Inc. (collectively referred to a "NME"). Intervention was granted and final hearing was set for May 1-3, 1985. On PBMC's subsequent unopposed motion for continuance, hearing was reset for July 8-10, 1985; then, on Intervenor's unopposed motion, continued and reset for October 21-23, 1985. At final hearing on October 21-23, 1985, PBMC presented (in support of its application) the testimony of Dino Cagni, Frank Griffith, Richard Chidsey, M. D., Thomas Schultz, and Woodrin Grossman. Elizabeth Dudek testified on behalf of HRS. NME presented (in opposition to PBMC's application) the testimony of Mark Rottenberg, M. D., Jerry Ingran, Tom R. Futch, and Dan Sullivan. PBMC exhibit Nos. 1 thorugh 20, HRS exhibit nos. 1, 2A, and 2B, and NME exhibit nos. 1 thorugh 9 were received in evidence. The parties stipulated that the CON application at issue is governed by statutory criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes, except for Section 381.494(6)(c) and (13), which they agreed were either inapplicable or were satisfied by the PBMC application. They agreed that rule criteria in DHRS Rule 10-5.11(1)-(9), (11), (12), and (24), Florida Administrative Code, also applied. The transcript of hearing was filed on December 2, 1985. PBMC and NME filed post-hearing memoranda and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (including responses) by January 20, 1985--within the time agreed on at hearing. (Explicit rulings on their proposed findings are contained in the attached Appendix.) HRS filed no proposed findings or memorandum of law. Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the following facts are determined.
Findings Of Fact Background PBMC, a nonprofit corporation organized in the early seventies to serve the health care needs of residents of northern Palm Beach County and southern Martin County, owns and operates a community not-for-profit hospital known as Jupiter Hospital. Jupiter Hospital is a 156-bed acute care hospital. It is the northernmost hospital in Palm Beach County and provides health care services to the residents of northern Palm Beach and southern Martin Counties. PBMC also owns and operates a nonprofit 120-bed nursing home known as the Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion, located in the same complex as Jupiter Hospital. PBMC is governed by an eight-member Board of Directors. Jupiter Hospital is governed by a Board consisting of 22 members: 11 are physicians and 11 are lay persons from the community. PBMC also has a management contract with HCA Management Company. Pursuant to this contract, HCA Management Company provides an administrator and a finance director. All other employees are employed by PBMC. Overall policy decisions regarding the operation of Jupiter Hospital and Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion are made by the PBMC Board. The Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion, however, has a separate Board of Directors which has never voted on the CON application at issue here. On or about March 15, 1984, PBMC submitted an application for a CON to establish a 60-bed comprehensive inpatient rehabilitation facility on the PBMC campus in Jupiter. The application called for the conversion of 60 nursing home beds in the Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion to rehabilitation ("rehab") beds, and renovations and improvements to the first floor of the two-story nursing home to accommodate the new rehab facility and the services it would offer. (PBMC Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2) On or about July 2, 1984, HRS (preliminarily) denied PBMC's application. (HRS Exhibit No. 1) PBMC filed a timely petition for a hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge HRS' decision. On September 12 and October 9, 1984, NME Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Delray Rehabilitation Institute, Rehab Hospital Services Corp., and University Rehabilitation Services, Inc., moved to intervene in this proceeding. On October 2, 1984, and January 21, 1985, these motions were granted. NME Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Delray Rehabilitative Institute is a 60-bed for-profit comprehensive inpatient rehab hospital under construction in Delray Beach, south Palm Beach County, on the campus of Delray Medical Center. The name of the hospital was changed recently to Seacrest Hospital. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. will have operational responsibility for Seacrest Hospital-- scheduled to open in the spring of 1986. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. is a for-profit corporation that operates comprehensive rehab facilities. It also owns and will operate Treasure Coast Hospital, a 40-bed freestanding comprehensive rehabilitation hospital under construction in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida. This hospital, like Seacrest, is scheduled to open in the spring of 1986. NME Hospitals, Inc. d/b/a Delray Rehabilitative Institute and Rehab Hospital Services Corp., are wholly-owned subsidiaries of National Medical Enterprises. National Medical Enterprises is one of the largest for-profit chains of acute care hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, long-term facilities, and rehabilitation hospitals in the world. National Medical Enterprises acquired Rehab Hospital Services Corp. in February, 1985. PBMC proposes to convert the first floor of its two story nursing home into a comprehensive inpatient rehab facility. On the first floor, there are two wings (with 30 beds in each) that will be converted. In addition, approximately 10,000 square feet of new construction will be necessary to house some of the rehab services. (PBMC Exhibit No. 2) The second story of the building will remain in service as a 60-bed nursing home. At hearing, PBMC proposed, in the alternative, to convert only 30 of the nursing home beds to inpatient rehab beds. This alternative calls for conversion of only one wing of 30 beds on the first floor of the nursing home. New construction required to accommodate the proposed rehab services would remain the same. (PBMC Exhibit No. 2) The 30-bed proposal has been approved by a majority of the members of the PBMC Board, although the nursing home's Board has not voted on it. REHAB BED NEED IN DISTRICT IX PBMC is located in Palm Beach County, which is in HRS District IX. District IX also includes the counties of Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee, and Indian River. (NME Exhibit No. 9) Although at the time of hearing, there were no existing, licensed inpatient rehab beds in District IX, there are 100 CON-approved beds. (PBMC Exhibit No. 10; NME Exhibit No. 9) The total CON-approved beds consist of the 60-bed Seacrest Hospital and the 40-bed Treasure Coast Hospital, both of which are owned by NME, but under the operational control of Rehab Hospital Services Corp., a corporate subsidiary. HRS measures the need for inpatient rehab beds using Rule 10-5.11(24), Florida Administrative Code. The need determination of Rule 10-5.11(24) has two components. The first part, set out at subsection (c)1., consists of a mathematical formula with which HRS initially calculates the numerical need for rehab beds. The second part of the rule enumerates the following factors that should also be considered in measuring the need for additional rehab beds: historic, current and projected incidence and prevalence of disabling conditions and chronic illness in the population in the service district by age and sex group; trends in utilization by various categories of third party payors; existing and projected inpatients in need of rehab services; and the availability of specialized staff. (Rule 10 5.11(24)(c)2., Fla. Admin. Code) Numerical Need Numerical bed-need is calculated using the mathematical formula set forth in Rule 10-5.11(24). (NME Exhibit No. 9) If applied to District IX for the year 1990, a numerical need for 83 beds is shown. HRS already has, however, already approved 100 beds in District IX. Thus, under this formula, all parties agree there is an excess of 17 rehab through 1990. (NME Exhibit No. 9) Other Indicia of Need But the fact that the mathematical formula shows no need for additional rehab beds does not require denial of an application. Need may be shown using the other factors listed in the rule, irrespective of whether the formula shows numerical need. For the purpose of demonstrating need under these additional indicia of the HRS rule, PBMC presented a methodology and need analysis developed by Richard Chidsey, M. D. (a psychiatrist on the staff of PBMC), and applied by Thomas Schultz, as health care planner. Dr. Chidsey selected various categories of diagnostically related groupings ("DRGs") which he considered to be categories of acute care patients who would be candidates for treatment in an inpatient rehabilitation hospital. Then, based on his experience, he designated a percentage in each DRG category to represent those patients who he felt would need such rehab hospitalization. Dr. Chidsey and Mr. Schultz then identified six area hospitals in Palm Beach and Martin Counties which they considered to be within the catchment area for PBMC's proposed rehab beds. Mr. Schultz then obtained 1984 DRG discharge data (in the categories designated by Dr. Chidsey) from each of the six hospitals. Using this information, Mr. Schult projected that those six hospitals would generate 919 referrals to the rehab beds at PBMC. Based on these projected referrals, Dr. Chidsey and Mr. Schultz concluded that the beds proposed by PBMC were needed and would attain the requisite levels of occupancy mandated by HRS rehab rule. For several reasons, this methodological is rejected as lacking in credibility. Dr. Chidsey, a staff psychologist at PBMC, has not had an inpatient rehab practice since the mid 1970s. His practice in Palm Beach County does not involve inpatient rehab services and only a small portion of his practice involves patients needing rehabilitation for major disabilities. In opposition to the DRG analysis made by Dr. Chidsey and Mr. Schultz, NME presented the testimony of Mark Rottenberg, M.D., and Dan Sullivan, an expert in health care planning and finance. Dr. Rottenberg is a pyschiatrist who lives in Detroit, Michigan, and maintains an active inpatient rehab practice. Dr. Rottenberg was critical of the DRG categories and referral percentages chosen by Dr. Chidsey, and testified that Dr. Chidsey's analysis significantly overstates the number of patients needing inpatient rehabilitation in many of the categories chosen. Dr. Chidsey's methodology is one which is not generally used or accepted by health care planners, and has not been subject to verification. This methodology, admittedly an institution specific methodology for looking at bed need and utilization, if applied to District IX as a whole, would predict the need for approximately 800 inpatient rehab beds or ten times the number predicted by the HRS rule. This is a gross overstatement of need, one which even PBMC does not defend. The weight to be given Dr. Chidsey's opinion on the need for the proposed hospital is also affected by his obvious personal stake in the outcome. If approved, the proposed rehab hospital would, in all likelihood, be under his direction and control. He has worked to establish such a rehab hospital for many year, yet he opposed earlier applications for rehab beds in Palm Beach County because they would have competed with outpatient units with which he worked. Dr. Rottenberg testified in a more detached manner and his recent inpatient rehab experience is more extensive than Dr. Chidsey's. His criticism of Dr. Chidsey's analysis is persuasive and Dr. Chidsey's methodology, as applied by Mr. Schultz, is rejected as lacing in credibility. The lack of need for additional rehab beds in District IX reflected by the mathematical formula is corroborated by the fact that Dr. Chidsey refers only a very small number of his patients to existing and available inpatient beds in Broward or Dade County. These counties are close enough so that if the need for beds is as pressing as PBMC suggests it is reasonable to expect that Dr. Chidsey would be referring more patients for inpatient rehab care. Another factor supporting a finding that the proposed rehab inpatient beds are not needed is the absence of any existing utilization data relating to the 100 approved (but not yet operational) beds in District IX. Since the district is already overbedded (according to the numerical formula), prudent health care planning would suggest that the two proposed facilities be allowed to open and their actual utilization determined before further rehab beds are added. PBMC correctly points out that, as a group, elderly people have a greater need for inpatient rehab services than younger people, and that Palm Beach County has a higher percentage of elderly people than the state as a whole. But the elderly nature of the population is a factor which has already been taken into account in the acute care discharge portion of the rehab methodology. The availability of ample outpatient rehab facilities has a tendency to reduce the average length of stay of patients at inpatient rehab facilities. There are numerous outpatient rehab facilities available in Palm Beach County. There is a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility ("CORF") in West Palm Beach and another CORF has recently been approved at Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center, a short distance from PBMC. Also, most of the acute care hospitals and home health care agencies in the area provide outpatient rehab services. Both Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals will offer outpatient rehab services. The existence of these services can reduce the length of stay of patients in a rehab hospital, thereby reducing the number of beds needed to serve the area. It has not been proven, however, that the availability of these outpatient facilities would reduce the average length of stay ("ALOS") at inpatient rehab facilities in Palm Beach County below the 28-day ALOS standard HRS now uses in its bed-need methodology. There has been an increasing trend toward recognition of rehab services by third-party payors, although recognition by private pay insurers (such as Blue Cross, Aetna and Prudential) is still fairly limited. The advent of the Medicare prospective payment system and DRGs, has also increased the demand for rehab services. Prior to implementation of the DRG system, Medicare reimbursed hospitals on a cost basis; patients could remain in hospitals long enough to receive needed rehab services and hospitals would be reimbursed for services. In contrast, the DRG system pays hospitals a fixed amount per admission based on diagnosis--this encourages hospitals to discharge patients earlier, sometimes before needed rehab services are provided. One effect of these financial incentives has been to increase the demand for inpatient rehab beds. The extent and likely duration of that increased demand has not, however, been shown. PBMC asserts that less weight should be accorded the calculation of bed-need by the numerical formula contained in Rule 10-5.11(24), because it fails to reflect these recent changes in health care delivery. As proof of the rule's asserted understatement of need for rehab beds, PBMC applied the formula to actual utilization in Broward County, District X, which has three rehab facilities. When the rule's 85 percent occupancy standard is applied, there is a need shown for 127 rehab beds in 1990--46 more than the 891 shown by the numerical formula. But the formula's apparent understatement of need in District X does not translate to understatement of need in District IX. This is because factors which affect rehab bed utilization in the two districts are not the same. While the two districts are contiguous, and the size and characteristics of their population are similar, the location of the populations and the concentrations of physicians (both of which can affect demand for rehab persons) are different. Accessibility Rule 10-5.11(24) also requires that at least 90 percent of the target population of a proposed facility reside within two hours driving time. Ninety percent of PBMC's target population is located within 30 minutes driving time of the proposed facility. Both Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals will, however, provide available and accessible alternatives to the proposed PBMC facility. The average automobile travel time on the major north/south highways between Seacrest and Treasurer Coast Hospitals is approximately two hours. Since the proposed PBMC facility would be located between these two hospitals, and the main population concentration of District IX is located along the coast, the two hospitals should be within two hours travel time (under average traffic conditions) for most of the residents of the District. AVAILABILITY, QUALITY OF CARE, AND EFFICIENCY OF LIKE AND EXISTING HEALTH CARE SERVICES As reflected by the rule methodology and other developments in delivery of health care, there is a clear demand for inpatient rehab services in District IX. Although there are no existing inpatient rehab facilities in the District, it is likely that Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals--at the southern and northern ends of the district--will adequately satisfy that demand until at least 1990. Seacrest Hospital is approximately 50 minutes driving time south of the proposed PBMC facility, while Treasure Coast Hospital is approximately 1.3 hours driving time north of the facility. When completed, both hospitals will offer services similar to and at least as intensive as those proposed by PBMC. Because of the travel times and distances involved, PBMC maintains that Seacrest Hospital (to the south) and Treasure Coast Hospital (to the north) will not be reasonably accessible to the patients in its proposed service area. Regular involvement of a patient's family in rehab therapy is an important factor and many rehab patients are elderly. A round trip to either of these NME facilities from the PBMC service area is estimated to take at least 1.5 hours-- 45 minutes each way. Because family involvement in a patient's therapy requires three to five visits a week, PBMC asserts that a one-way driving time of more than one-half hour is unreasonably burdensome to family members. With less family participation, the quality of care declines. PBMC's contention that one- way travel times from one half hour to 45 minutes are unreasonable is, however, rejected as not substantiated by the weight of the evidence. Dr. Rottenberg's testimony to the contrary is accepted as persuasive. Moreover, HRS Rule 10- 5.11(24)(c)3.c, contains an accessibility standard for rehab inpatient services. By requiring applicants to demonstrate that at least 90 percent of the target population resides within two-hours driving time of the proposed facility, the rule implies that driving time of up to two hours are acceptable and not unreasonably burdensome. HRS' interpretation--that this rule encompasses a two- hour driving time accessibility standard--is a reasonable one. Although it is possible that one-way travel times of from one-half hour to 45 minutes may affect the frequency of visits by family members and he patient's primary care physician, the extent which any reduced visitation rate may affect the quality of care provided is open to conjecture and has not been meaningfully established. PBMC proposes an average charge of $335 per day during the first year of operation of its rehab hospital, and $358 per day the second year. While these charges are significantly lower than the $465 per day charge proposed for both Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospital, PBMC has seriously underestimated the number of registered nurses (with specialized rehab training) it would be required to employ. A 60-day hospital offering intensive and quality rehab services normally requires between 25 and 30 registered nurse FTEs; yet PBMC projects only four for its entire facility. If PBMC was required to hire additional registered nurses, its projected charges per day would increase significantly but--due to the cost savings derived from converting an existing structure--it is reasonably expected that the charges would still be less than, or comparable to, those of Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospital. In summary, while there are no existing rehab inpatient facilities in District IX reasonably available to serve the patients in PBMC's proposed service area, there soon will be. Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals, opening in the spring of 1986, will offer quality rehab services at least as intensive as those proposed by PBMC; their charges will be comparable to or somewhat more than those proposed by PBMC. QUALITY OF CARE The proposed PBMC rehab hospital will meet the standards published by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities ("CARF") and deliver quality medical care to its patients. PBMC is committed to this objective and will hire the staff and purchase any equipment necessary to achieve it. The medical program will be run by a qualified psychiatrist. Physicians with staff privileges will be allowed to admit patients to the facility, but a psychiatrist will be assigned to co-manage each patient. There are two features of PBMC's proposal which, while adequate, are less than optimum. One--the understatement of the number of registered nurses needed to provide quality services has already been mentioned. This problem would, in all likelihood, be remedied by the hiring of additional staff. The other shortcoming is PBMC's plan to serve two of the patients' daily meals in their bedrooms, rather than in a central dining area. It is important that patients with disabilities be able to practice their social skills and interact with others in preparation for their return to the community. Dining together in a congregate setting facilitates this kind positive socialization experience. Since PBMC patients would dine together only once a day, their exposure to this socialization experience would be limited. AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF OTHER HEALTH CARE FACILITIES AND SERVICES As already mentioned, there are numerous home health agencies, nursing homes, and acute care hospitals which offer outpatient rehab services in District IX. Although these services are not a substitute for comprehensive inpatient rehab services (which offer more intense services to patients with more severe disabilities or ambulatory difficulties), the existence of such outpatient services may allow patients to be discharged earlier than otherwise and lessen demand for inpatient beds. Although there are no existing comprehensive rehab inpatient facilities in District IX which provide an alternative to the PBMC proposal, these soon will be in the form of Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals. ECONOMIC AND SHARED SERVICES PBMC intends to enter into referral agreements with acute care hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies in the service area of its proposed rehab hospital. The proposed hospital will benefit from being located close to Jupiter Hospital. Rehab inpatient services can complement the other medical services offered on the PBMC campus. The location of the rehab facility on the first floor of the nursing home will ease the transfer of patients to the nursing home on the second floor. The proposed rehab hospital would purchase ancillary services from, and share engineering and support services with, Jupiter Hospital. This would obviate the need to duplicate equipment and services already available in Jupiter Hospital and will allow for more efficient use of existing equipment and services. The rehab facility would also share services with the nursing home, such as dietary, maintenance, purchasing, housekeeping, and laundry. The existing outpatient rehab services at Jupiter Hospital would be relocated in the new rehab hospital. Integration of the inpatient and outpatient services will improve the efficiency and quality of rehab services. By sharing services with Jupiter Hospital and the connecting nursing home, the proposed rehab facility would achieve economies of scale and improve the overall quality of service. NEED FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FACILITIES Currently, there are no existing acute care of rehab facilities in District IX that have training programs for physicians interested in rehab medicine. If granted a CON, PBMC will attempt to establish a training program in affiliation with the University of Miami Medical School and the Veterans Administration Hospital in Miami. PBMC also proposes to establish a residency program in rehab medicine at its new facility, in cooperation with medical schools at the University of Miami and Temple University. Such a residency program would provide further opportunities for training health care practitioners. AVAILABILITY OF RESOURCES AND ACCESSIBILITY TO PATIENTS PBMC has sufficient funds to undertake and complete the project. At the time of hearing, PBMC had 10 million dollars in reserves which could be used to construct and operate the proposed rehab hospital, and cover any shortfall. The projected construction costs for this facility are only 1.2 million dollars. The PBMC Board is committed to this project, although the separate Board of the nursing home has not voted on it. It is reasonably anticipated that there would be enough qualified physicians and personnel available to staff and operate the proposed facility. Dr. Chidsey, a board certified psychiatrist with 20 years of experience in rehab medicine, is the architect of the proposed program and will be one of the principal admitting physicians. Other qualified psychiatrists have expressed an interest in the proposed facility and would be recruited if PBMC's application is approved. PBMC expects to hire new employees to staff the proposed rehab hospital. It plans to hire a total of 68.4 FTEs for the facility's first year of operation, which includes six registered nurses, 22.6 nurse's aides, 3.4 occupational therapists, and 7.1 physical therapists. (PBMC Exhibit No. 13) As already mentioned, the projection of six registered nurses appears to be an understatement of expected actual needs. PBMC should be able to recruit enough qualified nurses, nurse's aids, and technicians to administer its proposed program. Jupiter Hospital has been offering rehab services to inpatients and outpatients, so PBMC has experience in hiring rehab personnel. It has received applications for employment from rehab nurses in the last few months. Should a problem arise, PBMC can use the recruiting resources of Hospital Corporation of America, which operates and/or manages over 400 hospitals. A number of acute care hospitals in the area have been forced to lay off personnel as patient utilization and census have dropped, resulting in an increase in the number of available qualified health care personnel. In addition, PBMC has trained personnel at its disposal who have been providing rehab services to patients in Jupiter Hospital and in Jupiter Convalescence Pavilion. Also, PBMC has numerous volunteer workers who could be trained to assist in administering the rehab program. PBMC's location near several major traffic arteries make it more accessible to its target population. The same population, however, has reasonable access to Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals. At Jupiter Hospital, PBMC treats all patients regardless of their ability to pay. It is against PBMC policy to deny medical care based on inability to pay, and there is no evidence that it has ever done so. PBMC's nursing home has a Medicaid contract, and twenty per cent of its patients are Medicaid patients. Jupiter Hospital does not have a Medicaid contract, but has treated Medicaid patients regularly and simply "written off" the costs of care. Because the volume of Medicaid patients has steadily increased, Jupiter Hospital has now applied for a Medicaid contract and is awaiting approval. Presently about one percent of its patient population is Medicaid patients. It also has a contract with Palm Beach County to provide ambulatory surgery to indigents. Approximately fifty per cent of the admissions at Jupiter Hospital in 1985 were Medicare patients. (NME Exhibit No. 13) PBMC's proposed rehab facility would also accept Medicare, Medicaid, and indigent patients. A patient mix of ten percent Medicaid, sixty percent Medicare, two percent indigent, and four percent bad debt is projected. Approval of PBMC's proposal would enhance access to comprehensive rehab services for medically underserved groups, as well as other residents in the catchment area, although it has not been shown that such services will not be reasonably available at Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Since PBMC has not shown need for its proposed rehab hospital or demonstrated that it will meet occupancy levels needed to become self- sustaining, it cannot be concluded that the hospital is financially feasible in the short-term (without a continuing subsidy) or the long-term. The pro formas provide little assurance of the hospital's financial feasibility. They simply assume occupancy levels of seventy per cent in the first year and eight five percent in the second year--then test financial feasibility against those levels. The underlying assumptions were not shown to be reasonable or based on reliable or verifiable data. The pro forma projections are also deficient because they reflect an understatement of the number of registered nurses needed to staff the facility, thereby underestimating salary and benefit expenses by as much as $600,000. (This is the approximate cost of increasing the number of registered nurse FTE's from 4 to 25.) The pro formas assume a combined level of seventy per cent Medicare and Medicaid utilization. In order to qualify for Medicare reimbursement--on which the proposed hospital would financially depend--there must be 24-hour coverage by registered nurses with specialized rehab training or experience. It is unlikely that the staffing levels reflected in the pro formas would be adequate to meet the Medicare standard, thus placing a major financial assumption of the project in question. IMPACT ON COSTS OF HEALTH CARE AND COMPETITION PBMC projects an average daily charge significantly lower than NME's projected charges of its two facilities in District IX (Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals), and the actual charge of its existing facility in Sunrise, Florida. However, PBMC's projected charges depend on it achieving occupancy rates which have not been substantiated by the evidence. Consequently, projected cost savings for patients in District IX are speculative and uncertain. At the present time, both of the approved inpatient rehab facilities (Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals) in District IX are owned by NME. In addition, NME owns and operates a 108-bed rehab hospital in Sunrise, Broward County, Florida, which is approximately 45 minutes driving time south of the Seacrest Hospital site. NME also owns and will operate a new 60 bed rehab hospital in Melbourne, Florida. Melbourne is in Brevard County, immediately to the north of Indian River County. The Melbourne facility is about 45 minutes driving time north from the Treasure Coast Hospital site. Approval of PBMC's application will increase competition among providers of inpatient rehab services to residents of District IX. Increased competition may contribute to a lowering of health care costs for District IX. It is also likely that PBMC would draw a significant number of admissions and patient days which would otherwise accrue to Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals, thereby causing them substantial financial injury. The approval of PBMC's application would also enhance the bargaining position of HMOs and PPOs, which negotiate with health care providers for discounts or lower costs. In the absence of the proposed PBMC hospital, NME--as the only provider of inpatient rehab services in District IX--would have less incentive to negotiate with HMOs and PPOs, or reduce its charges. ALTERNATIVES Both parties admit that instead of converting the 60 nursing home beds into comprehensive rehab beds, PBMC could convert acute care beds at the adjacent 156-bed Jupiter Hospital. Since 1982, the nursing home has experienced an occupancy level exceeding ninety percent. In contrast, the hospital has experienced a sharp decline in utilization. The average patient census in 1983 was 70.5 percent; by 1985, it had dropped to 50.3 percent. In terms of serving the needy, 20-30 percent of the nursing home residents are Medicaid patients, compared to only one percent of the hospital's patients. Citing these figures, NME contends that conversion of "needed" beds in the nursing home to rehab beds- -when "un-needed" hospital beds abound next door is an inappropriate choice by PBMC. PBMC responds that there is an excess of nursing homes in District IX; that a new 120-bed nursing home is opening up nearby; and that the configuration and layout of the nursing home made the conversion and construction of additional areas for rehab therapy relatively inexpensive. These assertions were not refuted by NME. Moreover, the record does not contain a cost comparison between the two alternative sources of rehab beds. NME has failed, therefore, to prove that PBMC's decision to convert nursing homes rather than hospital beds was inappropriate. ALTERNATIVES TO NEW CONSTRUCTION PBMC's proposal calls for a limited amount of new construction. To a significant extent, the new rehab facility will utilize existing space on the first floor of the nursing home. The nursing home was constructed in accordance with standards and specifications suitable for an inpatient rehab facility. The additional areas that need to be constructed are relatively minor and of minimal cost. By converting space in the nursing home, rather than building an entirely new facility, PBMC has adopted an appropriate and cost-effective alternative to constructing an entirely new facility, assuming that the rehab hospital is needed in the first place. STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH PLANS PBMC's application exceeds the 3.9/1000 ratio of rehab beds to projected acute care admissions set forth in the State Health Plan. If PBMC's application was approved, there would be an excess of 7 rehab beds in District IX in 1990. In addition, the District IX Local Health Plan states that "comprehensive medical rehabilitation services should be available to all residents of the district." When Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals open in the spring of 1986, this requirement will be satisfied. 30-BED PROPOSAL As an alternative to its 60-bed application, PBMC proposes to convert only 30 of its nursing home beds. The same findings as to need, geographic and financial accessibility, availability and adequacy of alternatives, quality of care, economies and shared services, need for educational facilities, availability of resources, short-term financial feasibility, impact on health care costs, alternatives to new construction, and consistency with the State and Local Health Plans, apply to this alternative proposal. HRS Rule 10-5.11(24)(c)3.a., expressly requires new and separate rehabilitation facilities, such as proposed by PBMC, to have at least 40 beds. PBMCs 30-bed proposal does not satisfy this requirement.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That PBMC's application for a CON be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-2917 RULINGS ON PBMC'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Approved. Approved, with clarification that nursing home Board has not voted on the application at issue. 3-15. Approved in substance. Approved, but these cases are distinguished from the instant case. Rejected as irrelevant since the quality of evidence presented at the de novo hearing is at issue, not the propriety of preliminary agency action. 18-22. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The Chidsey-Schultz analysis was not shown to be reasonable or reliable, and overstated actual need. 23. Approved, but an adequate supply of rehab beds will be made reasonably available to residents of District IX within the next couple of months. 24.-25. Rejected for the reasons stated in 18-22, infra. Approved except for conclusion, not proven, that the numerical formula understates need for rehab beds. Approved, except the elderly nature of the population is a factor in the acute care discharge portion of the methodology and quality outpatient programs can reduce demand for rehab inpatient beds. Substantially approved, except statements about ALOS other than 28 days are conjectual. Approved. Approved, but modified to reflect that inpatient rehab coverage is still limited. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. The comparison of District IX to District X is inappropriate. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. The methodology takes age into account. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. See, para. 16-32, infra. Approved. Approved, but these cases are distinguishable. Approved, but modified to reflect that Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals will adequately satisfy this need through 1990. 37.-40. Approved. 41.-43. Covered in finding nos. 29-31. Approved, but PBMC's projected charges are uncertain due to understatement of number of registered nurses needed and failure to demonstrate need for the facility. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. 46.-47. Approved, except the number of registered nurses needed is understated. Approved. Approved, except the availability of outpatient rehab service tends to decrease need for inpatient services. Rejected as speculative. Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Approved, except for the second sentence, which was not proven. 53.-61. Approved in substance. Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Approved. Approved, except the number of needed registered nurses is overstated. 65.-71. Approved in substance. 72. Approved, but short run financial feasibility (without a continuing subsidy by PBMC) is in doubt because need has not been shown. 73.-75. Rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Neither need nor short and long term financial feasibility has been shown. 76. Approved, except for the last sentence which is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 77.-80. Substantially approved, but the charges are uncertain due to understatement of nursing need and failure to demonstrate need for the proposed facility. Financial feasibility is in doubt. Approved, but the extent to which it would still underprice the charges of Seacrest and Treasure Coast Hospitals is uncertain. Substantially approved, with caveat that inadequate nursing staff would place Medicare funding in jeopardy. Rejected as nursing staff costs are understated. 84.-85. Rejected, since without a showing of need, the financial feasibility is in doubt. Approved. Covered in finding no. 56. Approved. Covered in finding no. 57. Covered in finding no. 58. Covered in finding no. 57. Rejected as the extent to which costs may be lowered, and the likelihood, were not shown. Approved. Covered in finding nos. 59-60. Approved. Approved. First sentence, approved; second sentence rejected as speculative. Approved. Covered in finding no. 62. 100-102. Approved. First sentence, approved; second sentence, rejected as not proven by the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, approval; second sentence, rejected as not proven. Rejected, as approval would not be consistent with the State Health Plan. Approved. Rejected as not proven since nursing needs were understated and need for the rehab beds was not demonstrated. Approved, except that the 30-bed facility would not satisfy the requirement of Rule 10-5.11(24)(c)3.a. RULINGS ON NME'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-2. Approved. Approved, with clarification that the numerical formula shows excess beds in 1990. Approved, except for statement in the second sentence alluding to NME's ostensible "recognition" that Treasure Coast Hospital would be marginally successful at 60 beds, which is not proven. Approved. Approved, except for the fist sentence, which is argumentative. 7.-8. Approved. 9. Approved, except for the reference in the second sentence to what HRS consistently "recognized" in the past. Non-rule policy, no matter how often applied in the past, must be proved, anew, at each Section 120.57(1) proceeding. The generic impropriety of institution specific health care planning was not demonstrated in the instant case. 10.-11. Approved. 12. Approved, except for last sentence, which is not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 13-16. Approved. Approved, except for the first sentence, which is not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Approved, except for the first sentence, which is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Approved. 20.-21. Rejected, as unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. Approved and clarified to reflect that PBMC has not demonstrated that the proposed hospital will be financially feasible. Approved. Approved. Rejected as unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. Approved. Approved, except it has not been shown that the services of Treasure Coast and Seacrest Hospitals will be more comprehensicve than those proposed by PBMC, or that the approval of the PBMC Hospital will adversely affect the ability of Treasure Coast and Seacrest to attract and maintain staff. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Marbury Rainer, Esquire Jack C. Basham, Jr., Esquire 133 Carnegie Way 1200 Carnegie Building Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Harden King, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire P. O. Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 323029
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) should approve the application for certificate of need (CON) 7700 filed by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, LTD. d/b/a Miami Heart Institute (Miami Heart or MH).
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and taking action on CON applications pursuant to Chapter 408, Florida Statutes. The applicant, Miami Heart, operates a hospital facility known as Miami Heart Institute which, at the time of hearing, was comprised of a north campus (consisting of 273 licensed beds) and a south campus (consisting of 258 beds) in Miami, Florida. The two campuses operate under a single license which consolidated the operation of the two facilities. The consolidation of the license was approved by CON 7399 which was issued by the Agency prior to the hearing of this case. The Petitioner, Mount Sinai, is an existing health care facility doing business in the same service district. On February 4, 1994, AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero adult inpatient psychiatric beds for the planning horizon applicable to this batching cycle. The fixed need pool was not challenged. On February 18, 1994, Miami Heart submitted its letter of intent for the first hospital batching cycle of 1994, and sought to add twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at the Miami Heart Institute south campus. Such facility is located in the Agency's district 11 and is approximately two (2) miles from the north campus. Notice of that letter was published in the March 11, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Miami Heart's letter of intent provided, in pertinent part: By this letter, Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Miami Heart Institute announces its intent to file a Certificate of Need Application on or before March 23, 1994 for approval to establish 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults at Miami Heart Institute. Thus, the applicant seeks approval for this project pursuant to Sections 408.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The proposed capital expenditure for this project shall not exceed $1,000,000 and will include new construction and the renovation of existing space. Miami Heart Institute is located in Local Health Council District 11. There are no subsdistricts for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11. The applicable need formula for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults is contained within Rule 59C-1.040(4)(c), F.A.C. The Agency published a fixed need of "0" for Hospital General Psychiatric Beds for Adults in District 11 for this batching cycle. However, "not normal" circumstances exist within District which justify approval of this project. These circumstances are that Miami Beach Community Hospital, which is also owned by Miami Beach Healthcare Group, Ltd., and which has an approved Certificate of Need Application to consol- idate its license with that of the Miami Heart Institute, has pending a Certificate of Need Application to delicense up to 20 hospital inpatient general psychiatric beds for adults. The effect of the application, which is the subject of this Letter of Intent, will be to relocate 20 of the delicensed adult psychiatric beds to the Miami Heart Institute. Because of the "not normal" circumstances alleged in the Miami Heart letter of intent, the Agency extended a grace period to allow competing letters of intent to be filed. No additional letters of intent were submitted during the grace period. On March 23, 1994, Miami Heart timely submitted its CON application for the project at issue, CON no. 7700. Notice of the application was published in the April 8, 1994, Florida Administrative Weekly. Such application was deemed complete by the Agency and was considered to be a companion to the delicensure of the north campus beds. On July 22, 1994, the Agency published in the Florida Administrative Weekly its preliminary decision to approve CON no. 7700. In the same batch as the instant case, Cedars Healthcare Group (Cedars), also in district 11, applied to add adult psychiatric beds to Cedars Medical Center through the delicensure of an equal number of adult psychiatric beds at Victoria Pavilion. Cedars holds a single license for the operation of both Cedars Medical Center and Victoria Pavilion. As in this case, the Agency gave notice of its intent to grant the CON application. Although this "transfer" was initially challenged, it was subsequently dismissed. Although filed at the same time (and, therefore, theoretically within the same batch), the Cedars CON application and the Miami Heart CON application were not comparatively reviewed by the Agency. The Agency determined the applicants were merely seeking to relocate their own licensed beds. Based upon that determination, MH's application was evaluated in the context of the statutory criteria, the adult psychiatric beds and services rule (Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code), the district 11 local health plan, and the 1993 state health plan. Ms. Dudek also considered the utilization data for district 11 facilities. Mount Sinai timely filed a petition challenging the proposed approval of CON 7700 and, for purposes of this proceeding only, the parties stipulated that MS has standing to raise the issues remaining in this cause. Mount Sinai's existing psychiatric unit utilization is presently at or near full capacity, and MS' existing unit would not provide an adequate, available, or accessible alternative to Miami Heart's proposal, unless additional bed capacity were available to MS in the future through approval of additional beds or changes in existing utilization. Miami Heart's proposal to establish twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its Miami Heart Institute south campus was made in connection with its application to delicense twenty adult general inpatient psychiatric beds at its north campus. The Agency advised MH to submit two CON applications: one for the delicensure (CON no. 7474) and one for the establishment of the twenty beds at the south campus (CON no. 7700). The application to delicense the north campus beds was expeditiously approved and has not been challenged. As to the application to establish the twenty beds at the south campus, the following statutory criteria are not at issue: Section 408.035(1)(c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o) and (2)(b) and (e), Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Miami Heart meets, at least minimally, those criteria. During 1993, Miami Heart made the business decision to cease operations at its north campus and to seek the Agency's approval to relocate beds and services from that facility to other facilities owned by MH, including the south campus. Miami Heart does not intend to delicense the twenty beds at the north campus until the twenty beds are licensed at the south campus. The goal is merely to transfer the existing program with its services to the south campus. Miami Heart did not seek beds from a fixed need pool. Since approximately April, 1993, the Miami Heart north campus has operated with the twenty bed adult psychiatric unit and with a limited number of obstetrical beds. The approval of CON no. 7700 will not change the overall total number of adult general inpatient psychiatric beds within the district. The adult psychiatric program at MH experiences the highest utilization of any program in district 11, with an average length of stay that is consistent with other adult programs around the state. Miami Heart's existing psychiatric program was instituted in 1978. Since 1984, there has been little change in nursing and other staff. The program provides a full continuum of care, with outpatient programs, aftercare, and support programs. Nearly ninety-nine percent of the program's inpatient patient days are attributable to patients diagnosed with serious mental disorders. The Miami Heart program specializes in a biological approach to psychiatric cases in the diagnosis and treatment of affective disorders, including a variety of mood disorders and related conditions. The Miami Heart program is distinctive from other psychiatric programs in the district. If the MH program were discontinued, the patients would have limited alternatives for access to the same diagnostic and treatment services in the district. There are no statutes or rules promulgated which specifically address the transfer of psychiatric beds or services from one facility owned by a health care entity to another facility also owned by the same entity. In reviewing the instant CON application, the Agency determined it has the discretion to evaluate each transfer case based upon the review criteria and to consider the appropriate weight factors should be given. Factors which may affect the review include the change of location, the utilization of the existing services, the quality of the existing programs and services, the financial feasibility, architectural issues, and any other factor critical to the review process. In this case, the weight given to the numeric need criteria was not significant. The Agency determined that because the transfer would not result in a change to the overall bed inventory, the calculated fixed need pool did not apply to the instant application. In effect, because the calculation of numeric need was inapplicable, this case must be considered "not normal" pursuant to Rule 59C-1.040(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency determined that other criteria were to be given greater consideration. Such factors were the reasonableness of the proposal, the ability to afford access, the applicant's ability to provide a quality program, and the project's financial feasibility. The Agency determined that, on balance, this application should be approved as the statutory and other review criteria were met. Although put on notice of the other CON applications, Mount Sinai did not file an application for psychiatric beds at the same time as Miami Heart or Cedars. Mount Sinai did not claim that the proposed delicensures and transfers made beds available for competitive review. The Agency has interpreted Rule 59C-1.040, Florida Administrative Code, to mean that it will not normally approve an application for beds or services unless the statutory and rule criteria are met, including the need determination criteria. There is no list of circumstances which are routinely considered "not normal" by the Agency. In this case, the proposed transfer of beds was, in itself, considered "not normal." The approval of Miami Heart's application would allow an existing program to continue. As a result, the overhead to maintain two campuses would be reduced. Further, the relocation would allow the program to continue to provide access, both geographically and financially, to the same patient service area. And, since the program has the highest utilization rate of any adult program in the district, its continuation would be beneficial to the area. The program has an established referral base for admissions to the facility. The transfer is reasonable for providing access to the medically under-served. The quality of care, while not in issue, would be expected to continue at its existing level or improve. The transfer would allow better access to ancillary hospital departments and consulting specialists who may be needed even though the primary diagnosis is psychiatric. The cost of the transfer when compared to the costs to be incurred if the transfer is not approved make the approval a benefit to the service area. If the program is not relocated, Medicaid access could change if the hospital is reclassified from a general facility to a specialty facility. The proposed cost for the project does not exceed one million dollars. If the north campus must be renovated, a greater capital expenditure would be expected. The expected impact on competition for other providers is limited due to the high utilization for all programs in the vicinity. The subject proposal is consistent with the district and state health care plans and the need for health care facilities and services. The services being transferred is an existing program which is highly utilized and which is not creating "new beds." As such, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing services in the district will not be adversely affected by the approval of the subject application. The proposed transfer is consistent with, and appropriate, in light of these criteria. Therefore, the proposal complies with Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The subject application demonstrates a full continuum of care with safeguards to assure that alternatives to inpatient care are fully utilized when appropriate. Therefore, the availability and adequacy of other services, such as outpatient care, has been demonstrated and would deter unnecessary utilization. Thus, Miami Heart has shown its application complies with Section 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Miami Heart has also demonstrated that the probable impact of its proposal is in compliance with Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes. The proposed transfer will not adversely impact the costs of providing services, the competition on the supply of services, or the improvements or innovations in the financing and delivery of services which foster competition, promote quality assurance, and cost-effectiveness. Miami Heart has taken an innovative approach to promote quality assurance and cost effectiveness. Its purpose, to close a facility and relocate beds (removing unnecessary acute care beds in the process), represents a departure from the traditional approach to providing health care services. By approving Miami Heart's application, overhead costs associated with the unnecessary facility will be eliminated. There is no less costly, more efficient alternative which would allow the continuation of the services and program Miami Heart has established at the north campus than the approval of transfer to the south campus. The MH proposal is most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. The renovation of the medical surgical space at the south campus to afford a location for the psychiatric unit is the most practical and readily available solution which will allow the north campus to close and the beds and services to remain available and accessible. In totality, the circumstances of this case make the approval of Miami Heart's application for CON no. 7700 the most reasonable and practical solution given the "not normal" conditions of this application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order approving CON 7700 as recommended in the SAAR. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 5th day of April, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4755 Note: Proposed findings of fact are to contain one essential fact per numbered paragraph. Proposed findings of fact paragraphs containing multiple sentences with more than one statement of fact are difficult to review. In reviewing for this case, where all sentences were accurate and supported by the recorded cited, the paragraph has been accepted. If the paragraph contained mixed statements where one sentence was an accurate statement of fact but the others were not, the paragraph has been rejected. Similarly, if one sentence was editorial comment, argument, or an unsupported statement to a statement of fact, the paragraph has been rejected. Proposed findings of fact should not include argument, editorial comments, or statements of fact mixed with such comments. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner, Mount Sinai: Paragraphs 1 through 13 were cited as stipulated facts. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15 it is accepted that Miami Heart made the business decision to move the psychiatric beds beds from the north campus to the south campus. Any inference created by the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 21 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 22 is accepted. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraph 25 is rejected as repetitive, or immaterial, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues. Paragraph 26 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 28 is accepted but not relevant. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraphs 31 through 33 are rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant as the FNP was not in dispute. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive, or comment. Paragraph 38 is rejected as repetitive, comment or conclusion of law, not fact, or irrelevant. Paragraph 39 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41, 42, and 43 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence and/or argument. Paragraph 44 is rejected as argument and comment on the testimony. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument, irrelevant, and/or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 47 is rejected as comment or conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 49 is rejected as comment on testimony. It is accepted that the proposed relocation or transfer of beds is a "not normal" circumstance. Paragraph 50 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 53 is rejected as argument, comment or recitation of testimony, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 55 is rejected as irrelevant, comment, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 57 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 59 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 61 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 63 is accepted. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Mount Sinai could have filed in this batch given the not normal circumstances disclosed in the Miami Heart notice. Paragraph 65 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 66 is rejected as comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 67 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 69 is rejected as argument, comment or irrelevant. Paragraph 70 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Agency: Paragraphs 1 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the words "cardiac catheterization" and the inclusion of the word "psychiatric beds" in place, paragraph 7 is accepted. Cardiac catheterization is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 8 is accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or an error of law, otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraphs 11 through 17 are accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 21 are accepted; the remainder rejected as conclusion of law, not fact. Paragraph 22 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as argument, speculation, or irrelevant. Paragraph 25 is accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, Miami Heart: Paragraphs 1 through 13 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 14 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to law or irrelevant since MS did not file in the batch when it could have. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted as the Agency's statement of its authority or policy in this case, not fact. Paragraphs 17 through 20 are accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 23 through 35 are accepted. Paragraph 36 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence to the extent that it concludes the distance to be one mile; evidence deemed credible placed the distance at two miles. Paragraphs 42 through 47 are accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as comment. Paragraphs 49 through 57 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. Terry Rigsby Geoffrey D. Smith Wendy Delvecchio Blank, Rigsby & Meenan, P.A. 204 S. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Stephen Ecenia Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551
Findings Of Fact HCAC, on March 14, 1986, filed with DHRS, a letter of intent giving notice of its forthcoming application for a 90 bed long term psychiatric hospital in Hillsborough County, Florida. DHRS is the state agency authorized to consider, and approve or deny, applications for CONs. The proposed location is within DHRS service district VI. On April 15, 1986, HCAC filed the CON application which DHRS designated as CON #4526. The facility, HCAC Psychiatric Hospital of Hillsborough County, was intended to provide treatment to chronically mentally disturbed patients, and was planned to contain a 74 bed adult/geriatric unit and a 16 bed adolescent unit. The application listed Anthony J. Estevez as the applicant and Francis A. Gomez as the authorized representative. Mr. Gomez is a consultant to Mr. Estevez. On May 15, 1986, DHRS requested additional information of the applicant. On June 23, 1986, HCAC provided the requested material. On June 29, 1986, DHRS deemed the application complete. The HCAC application was comparatively reviewed by DHRS with another CON application, subsequently denied, which is not at issue in this proceeding. On September 30, 1986, DHRS granted partial approval to HCAC for the construction of a 50 bed adult and geriatric long term psychiatric facility. DHRS is authorized to grant approval to an identifiable portion of an application for a CON. DHRS considers a single bed to be an identifiable portion. Notice of the agency's decision was published in Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 24, at 3684. HCAC did not protest the denial of the remainder of the application. The Petitioners in the consolidated cases timely requested formal administrative hearing. On September 15, 1987, HCAC provided, to all parties, materials purporting to be updated information relating to the DHRS-mandated reduction in the scale of their proposal and changed economic circumstances. Charter moved at the hearing to exclude the material. The hearing officer denied the motion, but recognized a continuing objection to the use of such materials. In that HCAC has failed to establish that there is need for 50 long term psychiatric beds in district VI, the updated information is not relevant to this order and has been disregarded. HCAC, formally known as Health Care Advisors Corporation, Inc., was not incorporated until April 14, 1987, but - the name had been reserved prior to the incorporation. HCAC is wholly owned and controlled by Anthony J. Estevez. Following construction of the proposed facility, HCAC intends to operate as a general partnerships in which Mr. Estevez and his wife would be limited partners. Long term psychiatric services are hospital based inpatient services averaging a length of stay of 90 days. DHRS rules provide that such services may be provided in specifically designated beds in a general hospital, or in a specialty hospital setting. HCAC has failed to establish that there is a need for 50 additional long term psychiatric beds in district VI. The evidence does not indicate that there are persons within district VI who are unable to obtain long term psychiatric services, or whether there is need for any additional long term psychiatric beds in district VI. The HCAC application is inconsistent with the goals of both the district and state health plans, as well as other available needs assessment data. The district VI health plan indicates that additional long term psychiatric beds are unnecessary. The plan indicates that existing psychiatric hospital bed utilization must be at least 75%. The evidence indicates that for the three year period preceding the hearing, occupancy in existing psychiatric hospital beds was approximately 60%. Goal #1 of the state health plan indicates that mental health services should be made available to persons in need of such services in the least restrictive setting which offers treatment. Long term hospitalization does not generally offer the least restrictive setting for such treatment. Further, objective 1.3 of the state plan provides that additional long term beds in a particular district should not be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing long term beds in the district is at least 80%. The average annual occupancy rate for existing long term beds in district VI is less than 80%. The district VI alcohol, drug abuse and mental health plan also emphasizes the desirability of providing psychiatric care in a noninstitutional setting when possible, and suggests utilization of alternatives to institutionalization. Additional long term psychiatric beds are not identified as needed for the district. The plan does indicate that additional services for elderly persons are needed in the district, and that some elderly persons are inappropriately hospitalized due to lacking community resources. The evidence does not indicate that such persons would benefit from the HCAC project. DHRS approved the facility primarily based upon the premise that there was need for long term psychiatric beds in district VI. DHRS has not established a method of establishing numerical need for long term psychiatric beds. In the absence of such methodology, DHRS identified the "inaccessibility" of long-term beds in the eastern part of district VI as the most important consideration in their determination to award the HCAC certificate. The agency concluded in making the determination to grant the CON that "it is highly doubtful" that persons in need of services and residing in the eastern portion of the district would be within two hours driving time of facilities located within the district. However, the agency conducted no actual drive time study, instead relying on estimations based upon map distances and the agency analyst's perceptions of the time required to cover such distances. At least 90% of the district VI population is within two hours driving time to long term psychiatric beds. In determining that district VI residents were unable to obtain services, DHRS failed to consider existing long term psychiatric beds which are located within a two hour drive from, but outside of, district VI. Further, although it is normal for the agency to consider approved but unconstructed facilities in making CON determinations, the agency failed to consider such long term psychiatric beds located within a two hour drive from district VI for which CONs have been issued but which are not yet operating. The HCAC application did not suggest a detailed bed need assessment methodology. HCAC did not conduct a demographic study in district VI to assess or propose a numerical bed need for the district. Subsequent to the filing of the application and prior to the administrative hearing, a bed need analysis based upon the report of the Graduate Medical Educational National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) was prepared for HCAC. The GMENAC report was prepared in 1981 in order to predict the numbers of physicians (including psychiatrists) which would be needed in the United States by 1990. The study was not prepared for the purpose of predicting bed need, but was prepared for the purpose of predicting the need for educating new physicians. The GMENAC-based bed need projection results in a bed-to-population ratio of .61 beds per 1,000 residents. The accepted DHRS short term bed need methodology results in a bed-to-population ratio of .35 per 1,000 residents. However, according to the testimony of all witnesses including HCAC's and DHRS's, there is greater need for short term beds than for long term beds. The use of the GMENAC report as a basis for projection of long term psychiatric bed need overestimates the need for long term psychiatric beds. The resulting bed need projections are not supported by the weight of the evidence and have been disregarded. DHRS does not recognize numerical bed need projections which are projected pursuant to any methodology other than as specified in the agency rules. As stated previously, DHRS has not established a numerical bed need methodology applicable to long term psychiatric beds. In making the determining of need, DHRS did not consider the existence of long term beds in district VI which are designated for children and adolescents. The agency's rationale for failing to include all beds in ascertaining relevant occupancy levels in existing beds, is that children and adolescents are required by rule to be housed separately from adults in long term psychiatric hospitals. Although the rule relating to approval of short term psychiatric hospital beds requires that occupancy levels for short term adult beds and child/adolescent beds be counted separately, the long term rule states that need for additional beds will not be found unless the annual occupancy rate for all existing long term psychiatric beds in the district is at or in excess of 80%. The rule does not provide for DHRS to disregard some long term beds in determining that other long term beds are needed. There was no evidence to support the decision by DHRS to waive the 80% occupancy requirement as it relates to all existing long term beds in the district. The agency rule requires that all such beds be taken into account in determining whether there is need for a proposed facility. The evidence establishes that the annual occupancy rate for all existing long term psychiatric beds in district VI is less than 80%. The DHRS rule accordingly directs the finding that additional beds are not needed. HCAC proposes to offer a full range of high level, specialty long term psychiatric services, including diagnostics and evaluation, to chronically mentally disturbed patients. Such patients suffer from illnesses such as personality disorder, organic brain syndrome, and schizophrenia. Generally, long term patients may be differentiated from short term patients by the nature of the illnesses addressed through hospitalization and the type of care which is appropriate to particular patients. Long term patients are generally unserved or underserved, and require specialized treatment. However, many of the patients HCAC intends to serve are also appropriate for, and receive, short term treatment. The stated goal of the facility is to assure that the full continuum of psychiatric care is available to residents of district VI. The facility proposes to provide "milieu" therapy. Such therapy provides patients with a sense of community important where lengths of stay are extended. The facility proposes to offer educational programs designed to teach patients skills necessary for successful living outside an institution. The facility proposes to provide family counseling, and support for family members who are confronted with the chronic mental illness of a family member. Such services are generally currently available to residents of district VI. HCAC intends, as do other providers of similar services, to admit patients from a broad range of other facilities, private practitioners, and public and private agencies. HCAC states that it will establish relationships with other area mental health care providers in order to facilitate the cooperation between agencies conducive to providing appropriate treatment to persons needing mental health services. There was no evidence that such relationships or admission agreements have yet been entered into by HCAC. HCAC intends, as do other facilities, to closely monitor treatment plans for individual patients in order to provide a high level of care and to maintain therapeutic progress. A system of goal attainment will be utilized in evaluating appropriateness of treatment and planning further care. HCAC intends to ensure that patients receive services from existing community-based agencies following discharge so as to make subsequent readmission into a facility less likely. HCAC states that it intends to provide training to staff and other personnel, both from the HCAC facility and from other providers. However there was no evidence to establish that the facility will be specifically staffed by instructional personnel capable of providing such training. The HCAC facility is expected to draw patients primarily from within the district VI area, however, additional patient referrals from outside the service district are anticipated. The facility is planned to include 36 adult and 14 geriatric beds. Mr. Estevez is a developer and general contractor. Mr. Estevez's interest in long term psychiatric facilities is related to his personal inability to locate an acceptable instate long term psychiatric facility which could provide the level of care which Mr. Estevez believed would be appropriate for a family member in need of services. The facility would be managed by Flowers Management Corporation. Flowers' a for-profit entity, is 51% owned and controlled by Anthony J. Estevez. While Flowers manages several short term psychiatric and substance abuse facilities, Flowers has never operated or managed a long term psychiatric hospital. Nelson Rodney, Flowers, vice president for the Florida region, will be responsible for the management and programmatic operation of the proposed facility. Mr. Rodney has never managed, or been employed by, or had direct experience in, a long term psychiatric facility. The evidence does not indicate that Flowers Management Company is currently capable of managing and operating a long term psychiatric facility. The proposed HCAC facility will include a psychiatric inpatient unit, patient support services, diagnostic services, and ambulatory care services. The program to be utilized by the HCAC facility is based upon the "Flowers" model. The Flowers model is the Flowers designation for the type of services and care which are available at facilities managed by the Flowers Management Corporation. The Flowers model currently utilized by the company is constituted of numerous treatment modalities developed over a period of years and is essentially similar to treatment programs offered at short-term psychiatric hospitals. The Flowers model is applicable to both short term and long term treatment programs. None of the treatment modalities identified by HCAC as proposed for use at the facility are unavailable to residents of district VI. There are adequate, available and accessible alternatives to the proposed HCAC facility, both within and outside of district VI. In considering the HCAC application, DHRS disregarded beds in short term psychiatric facilities because agency rule distinguishes between long term and short term beds. However, DHRS has previously considered short term psychiatric services when evaluating the need for a long term psychiatric service provider. It is appropriate to consider existing short term facilities in determining whether alternatives to the proposed facility are adequate and available. Short term and long term facilities compete to some extent in providing services. Projecting an expected length of stay for a particular patient is an inexact process and is very difficult. Most psychiatric patients are considered to be in need of, intermediate care, extending beyond 30 days but less than 90 days. On occasion, some patients in short term facilities are hospitalized in excess of 90 days, and some patients hospitalized in long term facilities are discharged prior to 90 days. The average length of stay projected by HCAC was 90 days. HCAC chose the 90 day figure solely because DHRS defines a long term psychiatric facility as one with an average length of stay of 90 days, and HCAC proposes to construct a lone term facility. HCAC expects the average length of stay to be in excess of 90 days. In an attempt to screen out prospective patients with shorter lengths of stay, HCAC proposes to utilize an experimental method of projecting lengths of hospitalization, in order to eliminate patients with projected hospitalizations of less than 90 days. The experimental methodology, a "strain ratio analysis", enables psychiatric health care providers to assess a prospective patient's situation, develop an appropriate course of treatment, and determine the anticipated length of the hospitalization. However, such prototypical models are, by their nature, testing vehicles. The Flowers Management Corporation has never used the strain ratio analysis system. No facility was utilizing the strain ratio analysis system in other than an experimental capacity at the time of the administrative hearing. The strain ratio analysis system has been tested primarily in short term psychiatric facilities, rather than in long term facilities such as proposed by HCAC. While such methods hold great promise, and may be helpful in predicting the expected length of stay in individual cases, they are not sufficiently reliable to establish that HCAC's average length of stay will exceed 90 days. Some HCAC patients could be hospitalized for periods of time shorter than 90 days. Short term facilities, on occasion, provide treatment to patients hospitalized in excess of 90 days when such continued treatment is warranted. HCAC intends to take short term psychiatric facility charges into account when determining rate structure. HCAC used financial data from several short term psychiatric hospitals in preparing the information submitted to DHRS as part of the application for the CON. There are 654 licensed or approved short term psychiatric beds in service district VI, most of which may be utilized to treat adults in need of care. The annual average occupancy rate for these short term beds is less than 80%. The available beds are accessible, appropriate, underutilized and available. Additionally, there are beds in district VI residential treatment centers and nursing homes which to some extent may be used as alternatives to the HCAC proposal. UPC is a licensed short term psychiatric hospital located in Hillsborough County, approved in part as a teaching and research facility. The UPC facility contains 114 beds, including a 28 bed adult unit, a 20 bed geriatric unit, a 22 bed substance abuse unit, an 8 bed professorial unit, an 8 bed child unit, and a 28 bed-adolescent unit. The operation of the HCAC facility would negatively impact the operation of UPC through a reduction in patient days and related revenue. Charter is a short term psychiatric hospital located in Hillsborough County, containing 146 beds, 84 of which are designated as' adult or geriatric. Charter provides services to adult and geriatric patients. Although Charter is a short term facility, services to be provided by HCAC are essentially similar to services provided by Charter. Accordingly, the proposed HCAC facility would have a substantial impact on the operations of Charter. Because there is no need for additional psychiatric bed capacity, it is reasonable to assume that Charter would lose a significant number of patients, and revenue, to the HCAC facility, if the HCAC facility were operational. St. Francis is a 30 bed alcohol and drug treatment unit located in Hillsborough County. Although HCAC would not admit a patient with a primary diagnosis of substance abuse, HCAC would provide substance abuse treatment to persons receiving care for other illnesses. Patients in need of substance abuse treatment receive care at various types of facilities. At the hearing, an HCAC witness stated that some of the beds which the HCAC/GMENAC methodology indicated were needed could operate as residential substance abuse treatment beds. Accordingly, the HCAC facility could impact on the operation of St. Francis. UPC, Charter, and St. Francis provide services essentially similar to those which the HCAC facility would provide. There is a shortage Of personnel available to staff psychiatric hospitals. The HCAC facility would exacerbate the shortage, however, there are sufficient personnel to meet projected staffing levels, although it would make staff retention more difficult for existing providers. Theme was no evidence which would indicate that the HCAC facility would, through the operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources, provide for probable economies or improvements in the delivery of psychiatric services. There was no evidence which would indicate that HCAC planned to participate in joint, cooperative, or shared health care service provision. There was no evidence which would indicate that there was need for special equipment or services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in district VI or in adjoining areas. There was no evidence which would indicate that there was need for research or educational facilities beyond what is currently available within and adjacent to district VI. The proposed HCAC facility is not specifically designated as a research or educational facility and would provide no opportunity for such, beyond what any additional long term psychiatric hospital would provide. The HCAC facility would be designed and constructed by Project Advisors Corporation (PAC). PAC is wholly owned and controlled by Anthony J. Estevez. Mr. Estevez has never designed or constructed a long term psychiatric hospital. Mr. Estevez has not purchased property in the district VI area. However, PAC and Mr. Estevez have been involved in constructing short term psychiatric facilities. Construction of short term and long-term psychiatric facilities are essentially similar. Mr. Estevez's background and knowledge indicate that, assuming the project were otherwise permitted, the proposed project could be constructed in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. The projected costs of land acquisition, equipment and initial operating costs are based upon the establishment of need for the facility. Such need was not established, and accordingly the projections have not been considered. The evidence indicated that financing was available to Mr. Estevez at an annual rate of 13%. Mr. Estevez's has a continuing relationship with NCNB Bank which has indicated interest in providing financing for the project. The annual rate is reasonable. The projected construction cost is based on similar projects for which Mr. Estevez has been responsible and appears reasonable; however, such costs are related to need for the project, which was not established by the evidence, and accordingly such projections have been disregarded. Further Mr. Estevez has stated his intention to provide personal funds for capital, if necessary, and the evidence indicates that he is able to do so. The proposed staffing and salary levels are based upon the establishment of need for the proposed facility. Such need was not established, and accordingly the projections are irrelevant. HCAC states that the project will be accessible to all residents of district VI in need of services. However HCAC failed to establish that there is need for 50 additional long term psychiatric beds in district VI. In asserting that the proposed project was financially feasible, HCAC projected costs and revenue for the proposed facility. Such projections necessarily rely on the assumed need for the facility. However, the evidence has failed to establish that there is need in district VI for 50 additional long term psychiatric hospital beds. Accordingly, the financial information filed with the application, as well as the updated information provided subsequently, has not been considered to the extent based upon the assumption of need and resulting projected levels of occupancy. In that there is no demonstrable need for the project, the project is not financially feasible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the application of HCAC for certificate of need #4526. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX CASES NO. 86-4378, 86-4379, and 83-4380 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. UPC UPC's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended order except as follows: 15-26. Rejected. Unnecessary. 28. Rejected. Unnecessary. 48. Accepted insofar as relevant. 49-53. Rejected. Unnecessary. 58-70. Rejected. Unnecessary. 73. Rejected. Must be within service district. 80. Rejected. Conclusion of law. 87. Rejected. Unnecessary. Charter Charter's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 32-35. Rejected. Statute directs consideration of beds within district. 40. Rejected. Restatement of testimony. 75. Rejected. Conclusion of law. 77-82. Rejected. Unnecessary. 83-95. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. 96-121. Rejected. Unnecessary. 122. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. 123-127. Rejected. Unnecessary. 128-132. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. 133-134. Rejected.. Unnecessary. 135-139. Rejected. Not supported by weight-of evidence. 146-153. Rejected. Unnecessary. St. Francis St. Francis' proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 18. Third sentence rejected. Irrelevant. 25. Rejected. Unnecessary. 32. Rejected. Irrelevant. 36-40. Rejected insofar as related to projects not at issue in this proceeding. 41. Rejected. Not required to provide firm loan commitment. 42-43. Rejected. Unnecessary. 54. Rejected. Subordinate. 55-64. Rejected. Unnecessary. 65. Rejected. Restatement of testimony. 76. Rejected. Conclusion of law. 91. Rejected. Testimony cited relates solely to occupancy requirement for existing beds, not other agency criteria. 113. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. 114-147. Rejected. Unnecessary. Rejected. Implementation of staffing plan not required. Rejected. Unnecessary. Rejected. Restatement of testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. 156. Rejected. Methodology not' supported by evidence. HCAC HCAC's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: Accepted, but irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. 11. Rejected insofar as related to updated information not related to the DHRS-mandated reduction in scale of project or due to changed economic conditions. 19. First sentence rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. 31. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. HCAC is not operator of facility. Flowers Is Operator and Flowers experience insufficient. 51-52. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. 53. Rejected. Need not established. 63-68. Rejected. Unnecessary. 69. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. 70-92. Rejected. Assumes need, not established. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. Rejected. Assumes need, not established. Rejected. Inconsistent with HCAC-stated admission of non- local patients. Rejected. Service districts not necessarily related to accessibility. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. Second sentence rejected. Rule does not authorize separate calculation of adult/geriatric and child/adolescent long term beds. 103-108. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. 110. Rejected. Assumes need, not established. 111-112. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. Rejected. Unnecessary. Rejected. Conclusion of law. 115-117. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. Rejected. Unnecessary. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. Rejected. Unnecessary. 121-129. Rejected. Methodology not supported by weight of evidence. 131-139. Rejected. Not supported by weight of evidence. DHRS DHRS's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 6. Rejected. Need for project not established. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher R. Haughee, Esq. Moffitt, Hart & Herron 216 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1859 Susan Greco Tuttle, Esq. Moffitt, Hart & Herron 401 South Florida Avenue, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33602-5417 Lesley Mendelson, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Regulation and Health Facilities Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esq. Darrell White, Esq. McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Michael D. Ross, Esq. J. Robert Williamson, Esq. King & Spalding 2500 Trust Company Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30303 George N. Meros, Jr., Esq. Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss & Burke 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Judith S. Marber, Esq. Wood, Lucksinger & Epstein Southeast Financial Center Two South Biscayne Boulevard, 31st Floor Miami, Florida 33131-2359 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact I The Parties Charter Medical of Orange County, Inc., (Charter) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation, founded in Macon, Georgia in 1969. The parent corporation operates approximately 92 hospitals throughout the country, including Florida. Most of its hospitals are psychiatric or substance abuse facilities. Orlando Regional Medical Center (ORMC) is a 1,119- bed, nonprofit medical system comprised of four divisions. In downtown Orlando it operates a 630-bed tertiary care hospital and a 255-bed Arnold Palmer Hospital for women and children. A Sand Lake campus is located 10 miles southwest of Orlando, off I-4, and includes medical/surgical beds and 32 licensed short-term psychiatric beds. ORMC's St. Cloud Campus in Osceola County, south of Orlando, includes 84 medical/surgical beds. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the certificate of need program pursuant to Sections 381.701-.715, F.S. Psychiatric Institute of Orlando, Inc., d/b/a Laurel Oaks Hospital, (Laurel Oaks) is a subsidiary of P1A Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc., which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises (NME). P1A owns approximately 50 psychiatric hospitals throughout the county, including (30-bed Laurel Oaks, in southwest Orange County, a short-term psychiatric and substance abuse facility for children and adolescents Health Management Associates, Inc., (HMA) is a health management company which owns or operates 16 hospitals in the southeastern United States, including four psychiatric hospitals in Florida. HMA's Crossroads University Behavioral Center is a 100-bed free-standing psychiatric hospital in northeast Orange County. Its 60 adult beds and 40 adolescent beds opened in January 1989 as a licensed long-term facility, but it has been operating continually as a short-term facility. The Applications Charter proposes to develop a new free-standing 60- bed psychiatric hospital (40 beds for adults, 10 beds for adolescents and 10 beds for children). It plans a wide range of treatment modalities utilizing a multi-disciplinary team approach, tailored to the age and needs of the patient. Although no specific site has been selected, several have been identified in southwest Orange County. Charter anticipates the total cost for the project will be $7,783,000. Charter's patients will be primarily commercially insured (71%), with 15% Medicare and 4% indigent. Charter has committed to serve this share of indigent for the first two years of operation. As a specialty hospital, Charter is not eligible to accept Medicaid patients. ORMC proposes to build a 60-bed free-standing facility on a 7.2 acre site within 40 acres it already owns at Sand Lake and adjacent to its existing Sand Lake Hospital, for a total project cost of $6,678,935. No new licensed beds are required as ORNC will transfer its 32 short term beds from the sixth floor of the Sand Lake Hospital and will convert 28 of its licensed medical/surgical beds from its downtown hospital. The 60 beds will consist of 30 adult and 30 adolescent short term beds. Since the existing 32 beds are primarily adult beds, ORMC's project will be adding adolescent beds to the inventory in District 7. Proximity to Sand Lake Hospital will facilitate shared services, including engineering, dietary and laundry. ORMC also expects the joint use of therapists at its psychiatric facility and its existing brain injury rehabilitation unit at Sand Lake. Because the facility will be added to ORMC's general hospital license, it can and will accept Medicaid patients. ORMC has committed to serve 20% Medicare, 8% Medicaid and 8% indigent patients. ORMC will likely seek an outside management firm to operate its psychiatric facility. The Review On August 23, 1988, HRS published a need for 140 short-term psychiatric beds in District 7. Its SAAR issued in January 1989, recommended approval of a total of 137 beds. When the SAAR was amended in March 1989, to include the Charter approval, the total surged to 197 approved beds. Even after First Hospital withdrew its application for 55 beds, the total approved exceeded the published need for the 1993 horizon year by two beds. Numeric Need The short-term psychiatric bed need rule is found at Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o) , F.A.C. "Short-term" is defined as an average length of stay of 30 days or less for adults, and 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. A favorable need determination will not normally be given to an applicant unless a bed need exists according to sub-paragraph (1)(o)4 of "the rule". Rule 10-5.011(1)(0)4, F.A.C. provides as follows: Bed allocations for acute care short term general psychiatric services shall be based on the following standards: A minimum of .15 beds per 1,000 population should be located in hospitals holding a general license to ensure access to needed services for persons with multiple health These beds shall be designated as short term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds. 20 short term inpatient hospital beds per 1,000 population may be located in specialty hospitals, or hospitals holding a general license. The distribution of these beds shall be based on local need, cost effectiveness, and quality of care considerations. The short term inpatient psychiatric bed need for a Department service district shall be projected 5 years into the future based on the most recent available January or July population estimate prior to the beginning to the respective batching cycle. The projected number of beds shall be based on a bed need ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population. These beds are allocated in addition to the total number of general acute care hospital beds allocated to each Department District under Paragraph 10-5.011(1)(m). The net need for short term psychiatric beds shall be calculated by subtracting the number of licensed and approved beds from the number of projected beds. The population estimates are based on population projections by the Executive Office of the Governor. Occupancy Standards. New Facilities must be able to project an average 70% occupancy rate for adult psychiatric beds and 60% for children and adolescent beds in the second year of operation, and must be able to project an average 80% occupancy rate for adult beds and 70% for children and adolescent short term psychiatric inpatient hospital beds for the third year of operation. No additional short term inpatient hospital adult psychiatric beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds in a service district is at or exceeds 75% for the preceding 12 month period. No additional beds for adolescents and children under 18 years of age shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adolescent and children short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in the Department district is at or exceeds 70% for the preceding 12 month period. Hospitals seeking additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds must show evidence that the occupancy standard defined in paragraph six is met and that the number of designated short term psychiatric beds have had an occupancy rate of 75% or greater for the preceding year. Unit size. In order to assure specialized staff and services at a reasonable cost, short term inpatient psychiatric hospital based services should have at least 15 designated beds. Applicants proposing to build a new but separate psychiatric acute care facility and intending to apply for a specialty hospital license should have a minimum of 50 beds. The parties do not dispute that application of the formula yields a need for 140 beds, the total published in the applicable fixed need pool. Nor do the parties dispute that the occupancy standard was met, since HRS uses the lower standard of 70% as a threshold for determining whether need should be published. The parties agree that approval of both Charter's and ORMC's applications results in an excess of two beds over the published need. There is substantial dispute as to whether that excess is justified, and as to the composition of the beds as "speciality hospital" or "general hospital" beds. The only provision in agency rules or policy for exceeding bed need calculations is when "not normal" or "special" circumstances exist in the District. HRS' Policy Manual for the Certificate of Need program, dated October 1, 1988, provides in Section 9-6 B. (3): If a qualified applicant exist but the proposed project exceeds the beds or services identified in the fixed need pool, the department may award beds or services in excess of the pool when warranted by special circumstances as defined in rule 10- 5.011(1)(b), 1-4, F.A.C. and, specifically for nursing homes Rule 10-5.011(1)(K)2.j. F.A.C. (Laurel Oaks Exhibit #10, P. 9-2) The referenced sections of Rule 10-5.011(1)(b), F.A.C., relate to the enhancement of access--primarily economic access and access by underserved groups. Access is addressed in Part VII, below. No evidence was presented regarding special problems of access in District 7. Rather, HRS asserts that its excess approval was based on "rounding up" the numbers of beds, and on the favorable occupancy rates in the district. In its SAAR, HRS calculated the following occupancy rates by age cohort in the district: Adult 75.8% Child/Adolescent 74.8%; and in Orange County: Adult 57.4% Child/Adolescent 100. The adult rate is therefore slightly above the 75% minimum in the district, and substantially below the minimum in Orange County. The child/adolescent rate is above the 70% minimum in both the district and county. HRS appropriately does not utilize occupancy in beds other than licensed short term psychiatric bed in calculating its rates as it would be difficult to compute the number of available beds (medical/surgical, long term psychiatric, etc.). The rule specifies that a minimum of .15 beds per 1000 population "should" be allocated to hospital1s holding a general license and that .20 beds per 1000 population may be located in either speciality hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. Of the 140 beds needed in District 7, 75 may be located in a speciality hospital under this formula. 30 speciality beds were awarded to West Lake and are unchallenged. The Charter application for 60 speciality beds exceeds by 15, the 45 speciality beds left to be allocated. The State and Local Health Plans The State Health Plan is dated 1985-1987. Goal 1 is the only portion of the plan that is relevant in this review. It essentially reiterates the need methodology described above, regarding the .35 beds per 1000 population and the 70% and 75% annual occupancy thresholds. The applicable local health plan is the 1988 local health plan for District 7. This plan divides the district into "planning areas": Brevard, Osceola, Seminole and Orange -- the four counties within the district. Planning areas, unlike subdistricts, are more in the nature of guidelines and do not carry the same legal weight as subdistricts. Both applicants are committed to submit data to the local health councils, as provided in recommendation #2. Both applicants have committed to provide a fair share of care to the underserved, although ORMC's commitment is substantially greater and has a proven record to support it. Recommendation #5 provides that no new short-term psychiatric or substance abuse beds shall be approved until all existing beds in the planning area are operating at or above 75% occupancy for the most recent twelve months for which data is available from the local health council. This criteria is barely met when adult and children/adolescent occupancy is combined, and is not met by the occupancy rate for adult beds in Orange County. Financial Feasibility The pro formas of both applicants, which are no more than best guess estimates, are generally reasonable, based upon the experience of the applicants' existing programs. Charter's proposal makes no provision for management fees, although such fees are remitted to the parent company by its subsidiaries and are reported to the Health Care Cost Containment Board. Charter anticipates that it would not incur additional corporate overhead to support this facility if it is built. In recent years ORMC's psychiatric unit has lost money in its operation when overhead is factored into the cost. Its Program Director, Jeffrey Oppenheim, reasonably anticipates the new facility will make a profit, as it will serve a better mix of age cohorts and will offer a more desirable setting than its limited facility now located on the sixth floor of a medical/surgical hospital. The financial feasibility of both applications depends on the programs' ability to attract patients. That ability is not seriously questioned. Both applications have substantial experience in operating financially efficient health care programs. Quality of Care and Accessibility No evidence was presented to challenge either applicant's ability to provide quality care. Nor, however, was the quality of care of existing alternative programs at issue. Geographic access in District 7 is not a problem, and none suggests that the access standard in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.g., F.A.C., is not met (travel time of 45 minutes or less for 90% of the service area population). Charter's inability to provide Medicaid services and its time-limited commitment to serve even 4% indigents amount to only minimal contribution to the economically underserved population. In the past, ORMC has been a receiving facility for Baker Act patients and it anticipates it will again when the psychiatric program has its new quarters. It is only one of two hospitals in Orange County eligible to provide Medicaid services and is the fifth highest provider of charity and Medicaid in the State of Florida, according to Medical Health Care Cost Containment Board data. Impact on Existing Facilities and Competition Positive competition among providers already exists in District 7. There are eleven existing short term psychiatric programs in the four-county area, including both speciality and general hospitals, and adult, children and adolescent programs. Only three obtained an occupancy rate of more than 75% for the fiscal period ending June 1988. The Availability of Health Manpower There is a shortage of nurses, qualified social workers and counsellors in District 7. HMA has experienced problems in recruiting staff at its Orlando facility. Competition for these staff has caused salaries to rise, and consequently the cost of providing services has risen. Turnover results when staff are attracted to new facilities, causing training problems and affecting quality of care. Charter has the corporate resources to conduct effective recruiting, but has no experience recruiting in the Orlando area. ORMC, a large diverse facility, with good opportunity for lateral and upward mobility, has experienced few problems staffing its programs. The Availability of Alternatives Eight of eleven District 7 short term psychiatric facilities have operated below 75% occupancy in the last two years. These under-utilized facilities are plainly alternatives for new projects proposing the same services. Neither applicant is proposing novel or innovative services in psychiatric care. That licensed long term psychiatric facilities such as HMA, are operating short term programs does not justify the approval of new short term beds, but rather suggests these programs could be converted, with little or no capital outlay, into short term programs. Conversion of under-utilized acute are beds to short term psychiatric beds is also an alternative in District 7. Acute care bed occupancy rates in each county of District 7 failed to reach 60% in the most recent 12-month period of available data. The criterion of Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)5.f., F.A.C. favors the conversion of under-utilized beds in other hospital services unless conversion costs are prohibitive. There has been a trend in the last several years away from inpatient care and toward less restrictive treatment modalities. Both applicants acknowledge this trend with their inclusion of partial hospitalization programs in their plans. ORMC has no reasonable alternative to building a new facility if it is to maintain its inpatient psychiatric program. There is an increasing demand for the medical surgical beds it currently occupies on the sixth floor of Sand Lake Hospital. There is no appropriate space in its downtown facilities. Balancing the Criteria Comparative Review and Summary As reflected above, not all of the relevant statutory and rule criteria have been met by these applicants. There remains, however, the planning horizon numerical need for additional short term psychiatric beds. While that need could likely be met with the utilization of beds that are not licensed for the provision of short term care, such a solution frustrates state licensing requirements. Three alternative dispositions exist: to deny both ORMC and Charter applications, leaving an unmet need in this cycle for 86 beds; to grant one application only; or to approve both and exceed the need by two beds. HRS argues that the two-bed difference is of little consequence and that the excessive number of specialty beds if Charter is approved is irrelevant, as no general hospital is currently competing for the beds. It is not possible to conjecture that appropriate general hospital applicants will participate in a near future cycle, but it is certain that if those beds are awarded in this cycle to a specialty hospital, they will not be available in a future cycle. Nothing requires that all beds identified in a fixed pool must be awarded in that cycle. The converse follows when, as here, other considerations weigh against approval of additional beds. Between the two applicants, ORMC more consistently meets the rule and statutory criteria. Although it still proposes a substantial capital outlay, (ORMC) relies on conversion of existing licensed beds and results in less impact on other existing programs. Its contribution to the underserved population is more substantial; it proposes more needed adolescent, rather than adult beds; and it does not violate the .15/.20 general hospital, specialty hospital bed balance. That balance needs to be maintained in this case to insure competition among Medicaid providers. In summary, the evidence supports approval of ORMC's application and denial of Charter's.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered denying CON number 5691 to Charter Medical of Orange County, Inc.; and granting CON #5697 to Orlando Regional Medical Center. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NO. 89-1358,89-1366.89-1368,89-2039 & 89-2041 The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by each party: Charter Medical of Orange County, Inc. Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. 6.-17. Adopted in statement of the issues. 18. Adopted in paragraphs 6 and 7. 19.-36. Rejected as unnecessary, except as summarized in paragraph 6. 37. Addressed in paragraph 30. 38.-5O. Rejected as unnecessary, except as summarized in paragraph 36. 51.-57. Rejected as unnecessary, except at summarized in paragraph 7. 58.-6I. Adopted in paragraph 16. 62.-69. Rejected as unnecessary and contrary to the methodology in the rule. 70. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. 71.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. 78. Rejected as contrary to the evidence and law. "Not normal" does not include high occupancy rates in several facilities. 79.-8I. Adopted in summary in paragraph 21. 82.-83. Rejected as immaterial. The evidence in this case supports maintenance of the balance, notwithstanding past practice. 84. Adopted in paragraph 15. 85.-103. Rejected as unnecessary. 104. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. 105. & 106. Adopted in paragraph 22. 107.-109. Adopted in paragraph 23. 110. & 111. Rejected as unnecessary. 112. & 113. Adopted in paragraph 24. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 25. 116.-149. Rejected as unnecessary. 150. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 26 and 29. 151.-161. Rejected as unnecessary. 162.-164. Adopted in substance in paragraph 27. 165.-171. Rejected as unnecessary. 172. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 173.-180. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 181. Adopted in paragraph 5. 182.-190. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 43. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 193.-198. Rejected as unnecessary. 199. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 200.-206. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 8. 210.-213. Rejected as unnecessary. 214. Adopted by implication in paragraph 33. 215.-218. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. & 221. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 222. Adopted in summary in paragraph :28. 223.-238. Rejected as unnecessary. Orlando Regional Medical Center Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 9. 3.-7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 42. Adopted in summary in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as ummaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 15. Addressed in the preliminary statement. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. 22.-24. Adopted in summary in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 15 and conclusion of law #7. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as unnecessary. 29 & 30. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraph 23. 36 & 37. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 11 and 33. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 11. 41 & 42. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 25. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 26. 48.-52. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (the finding as to no alternatives). The finding regarding Park Place is unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 42. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 36. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 30. 63.-66. Rejected as unnecessary. 67. Adopted in paragraph 47. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1. & 2. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraphs 6. and 9. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 36. 7.-9. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 26. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in substance in paragraph 32. Adopted by implication in paragraphs 30 and 34. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 15. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The policy is found in HRS' Policy Manual. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. 26 & 27. Adopted by implication in 23. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 33 & 34. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in summary in paragraph 46. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, and immaterial (as to the ratio). Rejected as contrary to the definition "not normal" and immaterial. 38 & 39. Rejected as argument. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraph 20. Rejected as unnecessary. 43 & 49. Rejected as argument. Laurel Oaks Hospital Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 13. & 9. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. 10. Adopted in paragraph 18. 11.-21. Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. The term is "should", not "shall". Adopted in paragraph 15. 36 Adopted in paragraph 13. 37.-40. Adopted in paragraph 16. 41 & 42. Adopted in paragraph 18. 43 & 44. Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. 45.-47. Rejected as argument and unnecessary. 48 & 49. Adopted in paragraph 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. 52 - 54. Rejected as unnecessary. 55 & 56. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20. 57.-61. Rejected as unnecessary or argument. 62.-65. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 20 and 23. 66 & 67. Adopted in paragraph 22. 68. Adopted in paragraph 23. 69.-72. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. 73 & 74. Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. 75. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 76.-78. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 30 and 31. Adopted in paragraph 37. 82.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86. Adopted in paragraph 30. 87 & 88. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraphs 38 and 39. 92.-95 Rejected as immaterial and unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 101-112. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 27. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 35. 116-121. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Health Management Associates1 Inc:. (HMA) 1. & 2. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 6. 5.-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7.-11. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraphs 15 and 23. Adopted in paragraph 25. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in paragraphs 16 and 18. 20 Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 21. 23 & 24. Rejected as unnecessary. 25 & 26. Adopted in paragraph 5. 27.-51. Rejected as unnecessary. 52. Adopted in paragraph 35. 53.-55. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 James M. Barclay, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer, Harbert & Bates 225 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32802 Edgar Lee Elzie, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly First Florida Bank Building, Suite 804 Tallahassee, FL 32401 C. Gary Williams, Esquire R. Stan Peeler, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Brennan, Jr., Esquire Bonner & O'Connell 900 17th street, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20006 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Haben & Culpepper 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Miller, General Counsel HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. R. S. Power, Agency Clerk HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Application West Florida Regional Medical Center is a 400-bed acute care hospital in Pensacola, Escambia County, Florida. The hospital is located in a subdistrict which has the greatest population aged 65 and over who are living in poverty. That group constitutes the population qualified for Medicare. Some 17 percent of Escambia County's population falls into the medicare category. Prior to October, 1987, HRS had determined that there was a fixed pool need in the Escambia County area for 120 nursing home or extended care beds. Several hospitals in the Escambia County area applied for the 120 nursing home beds. Those beds were granted to Advocare (60 beds) and Baptist Manor (60 beds). The award of the 120 beds to Baptist Manor and Advocare is not being challenged in this action. West Florida, likewise, filed an application for an award of nursing home beds in the same batch as Advocare and Baptist Manor. However, Petitioner's application sought to convert 8 acute care beds to nursing home or extended care beds. West Florida's claim to these beds was not based on the 120 bed need established under the fixed need pool formula. West Florida's application was based on the unavailability of appropriately designated bed space for patients who no longer required acute care, but who continued to require a high skill level of care and/or medicare patients. The whole purpose behind West Florida's CON application stems from the fact that the federal Medicare system will not reimburse a hospital beyond the amount established for acute care needs as long as that bed space is designated as acute care. However, if the patient no longer requires acute care the patient may be re-designated to a skilled care category which includes nursing home or extended care beds. If the patient is appropriately reclassified to a skilled care category, the hospital can receive additional reimbursement from Medicare above its acute care reimbursement as long as a designated ECF bed is available for the patient. Designation or re-designation of beds in a facility requires a Certificate of Need. Petitioner's application for the 8 beds was denied. When the application at issue in this proceeding was filed Petitioner's 13-bed ECF unit had been approved but not yet opened. At the time the State Agency Action Report was written, the unit had just opened. Therefore, historical data on the 13 bed unit was not available at the time the application was filed. Reasons given for denying West Florida's application was that there was low occupancy at Baptist Hospital's ECF unit, that Sacred Heart Hospital had 10 approved ECF beds and that there was no historical utilization of West Florida 13 beds. At the hearing the HRS witness, Elizabeth Dudek stated that it was assumed that Baptist Hospital and Sacred Heart Hospital beds were available for West Florida patients. In 1985 West Florida applied for a CON to establish a 21-bed ECF unit. HRS granted West Florida 13 of those 21 beds. The 8 beds being sought by West Florida in CON 5319 are the remaining beds which were not granted to West Florida in its 1985 CON application. In order to support its 1985 CON application the hospital conducted a survey of its patient records to determine an estimate of the number of patients and patient days which were non acute but still occupied acute care beds. The hospital utilized its regularly kept records of Medicare patients whose length of stay or charges exceeded the Medicare averages by at least two standard deviations for reimbursement and records of Medicare patients whose charges exceed Medicare reimbursement by at least $5,000. These excess days or charges are known as cost outliers and, if the charge exceeds the Medicare reimbursement by $5000 or more, the excess charge is additionally known as a contractual adjustment. The survey conducted by the hospital consisted of the above records for the calendar year 1986. The hospital assumed that if the charges or length of stay for patients were excessive, then there was a probability that the patient was difficult to place. The above inference is reasonable since, under the Medicare system, a hospital's records are regularly reviewed by the Professional Review Organization to determine if appropriate care is rendered. If a patient does not meet criteria for acute care, but remains in the hospital, the hospital is required to document efforts to place the patient in a nursing home. Sanctions are imposed if a hospital misuses resources by keeping patients who did not need acute care in acute care bed spaces even if the amount of reimbursement is not at issue. The hospital, therefore goes to extraordinary lengths to place patients in nursing home facilities outside the hospital. Additionally, the inference is reasonable since the review of hospital records did not capture all non-acute patient days. Only Medicare records were used. Medicare only constitutes about half of all of West Florida's admissions. Therefore, it is likely that the number of excess patient days or charges was underestimated in 1986 for the 1985 CON application. The review of the hospital's records was completed in March, 1987, and showed that 485 patients experienced an average of 10.8 excess non-acute days at the hospital for a total of 5,259 patient days. The hospital was not receiving reimbursement from Medicare for those excess days. West Florida maintained that the above numbers demonstrated a "not normal need" for 21 additional ECF beds at West Florida. However as indicated earlier, HRS agreed to certify only 13 of those beds. The 13 beds were certified in 1987. The 13-bed unit opened in February, 1988. Since West Florida had planned for 21 beds, all renovations necessary to obtain the 8-bed certification were accomplished when the 13- bed unit was certified in 1987. Therefore, no capital expenditures will be required for the additional 8 beds under review here. The space and beds are already available. The same study was submitted with the application for the additional eight beds at issue in these proceedings. In the present application it was assumed that the average length of stay in the extended care unit would be 14 days. However, since the 13 bed unit opened, the average length of stay experienced by the 13-bed unit has been approximately 15 days and corroborates the data found in the earlier records survey. Such corroboration would indicate that the study's data and assumptions are still valid in reference to the problem placements. However, the 15- day figure reflects only those patients who were appropriately placed in West Florida's ECF unit. The 15-day figure does not shed any light on those patients who have not been appropriately placed and remain in acute care beds. That light comes from two additional factors: The problems West Florida experiences in placing sub-acute, high skill, medicare patients; and the fact that West Florida continues to have a waiting list for its 13 bed unit. Problem Placements Problem placements particularly occur with Medicare patients who require a high skill level of care but who no longer require an acute level of care. The problem is created by the fact that Medicare does not reimburse medical facilities based on the costs of a particular patients level of care. Generally, the higher the level of care a patient requires the more costs a facility will incur on behalf of that patient. The higher costs in and of themselves limit some facilities in the services that facility can or is willing to offer from a profitability standpoint. Medicare exacerbates the problem since its reimbursement does not cover the cost of care. The profitability of a facility is even more affected by the number of high skill Medicare patients resident at the facility. Therefore, availability of particular services at a facility and patient mix of Medicare to other private payors becomes important considerations on whether other facilities will accept West Florida' s patients. As indicated earlier, the hospital goes to extraordinary lengths to place non- acute patients in area nursing homes, including providing nurses and covering costs at area nursing homes. Discharge planning is thorough at West Florida and begins when the patient is admitted. Only area nursing homes are used as referrals. West Florida's has attempted to place patients at Bluff's and Bay Breeze nursing homes operated by Advocare. Patients have regularly been refused admission to those facilities due to acuity level or patient mix. West Florida also has attempted to place patients at Baptist Manor and Baptist Specialty Care operated by Baptist Hospital. Patients have also been refused admission to those facilities due to acuity level and patient mix. 16 The beds originally rented to Sacred Heart Hospital have been relinquished by that hospital and apparently will not come on line. Moreover the evidence showed that these screening practices would continue into the future in regard to the 120 beds granted to Advocare and Baptist Manor. The president of Advocare testified that his new facility would accept some acute patients. However, his policies on screening would not change. Moreover, Advocare's CON proposes an 85 percent medicaid level which will not allow for reimbursement of much skilled care. The staffing ratio and charges proposed by Advocare are not at levels at which more severe sub-acute care can be provided. Baptist Manor likewise screens for acuity and does not provide treatment for extensive decubitus ulcers, or new tracheostomies, or IV feeding or therapy seven days a week. Its policies would not change with the possible exception of ventilated patients, but then, only if additional funding can be obtained. There is no requirement imposed by HRS that these applicants accept the sub-acute-patients which West Florida is unable to place. These efforts have continued subsequent to the 13-bed unit's opening. However, the evidence showed that certain types of patients could not be placed in area nursing homes. The difficulty was with those who need central lines (subclavian) for hyperalimentation; whirlpool therapy such as a Hubbard tank; physical therapy dither twice a day or seven days a week; respiratory or ventilator care; frequent suctioning for a recent tracheostomy; skeletal traction; or a Clinitron bed, either due to severe dicubiti or a recent skin graft. The 13-bed unit was used only when a patient could not be placed outside the hospital. The skill or care level in the unit at West Florida is considerably higher than that found at a nursing home. This is reflected in the staffing level and cost of operating the unit. Finally, both Advocare and Baptist Manor involve new construction and will take approximately two years to open. West Florida's special need is current and will carry into the future. The Waiting List Because of such placement problems, West Florida currently has a waiting list of approximately five patients, who are no longer acute care but who cannot be placed in a community nursing home. The 13-bed unit has operated at full occupancy for the last several months and is the placement of last resort. The evidence showed that the patients on the waiting list are actually subacute patients awaiting an ECF bed. The historical screening for acuity and patient mix along with the waiting list demonstrates that currently at least five patients currently have needs which are unmet by other facilities even though those facilities may have empty beds. West Florida has therefore demonstrated a special unmet need for five ECF beds. Moreover, the appropriate designation and placement of patients as to care level is considered by HRS to be a desirable goal when considering CON applications because the level of care provided in an ECF unit is less intense than the level of care required in an acute care unit. Thus, theoretically, better skill level placement results in more efficient bed use which results in greater cost savings to the hospital. In this case, Petitioner offers a multi-disciplinary approach to care in its ECF unit. The approach concentrates on rehabilitation and independence which is more appropriate for patients at a sub-acute level of care. For the patients on the awaiting proper placement on the waiting list quality of care would be improved by the expansion of the ECF unit by five beds. Finally, there are no capital costs associated with the conversion of these five beds and no increase in licensed bed capacity. There are approximately five patients on any given day who could be better served in an ECF unit, but who are forced to remain in an acute care unit because no space is available for them. This misallocation of resources will cost nothing to correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a CON to Petitioner for five ECF beds. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraph 1-29 of Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 20, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 33 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The first sentence of paragraph 7 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact was not shown to be the evidence. Strict compliance with the local health plan was not shown to be an absolute requirement for CON certification. The remainder of paragraph 7 is subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 9, 10, 11 and 30 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The first part of the first sentence of paragraph 13 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact before the semicolon is adopted. The remainder of the sentence and paragraph is rejected. The first sentence of paragraph 14 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact was not shown by the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 17, 26 and 32 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The acts contained in paragraph 18 are rejected as supportive of the conclusion contained therein. The first (4) sentences of paragraph 19 are subordinate. The remainder of the paragraph was not shown by the evidence. The first (2) sentences of paragraph 21 are adopted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected. The facts contained in paragraph 22 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 23 is adopted. The remainder of paragraph 23 is subordinate. The first sentence of paragraph 24 is rejected. The second, third, and fourth sentences are subordinate. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected. The first sentence of paragraph 25 is subordinate. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire MOYLE, FLANIGAN, KATZ, FITZGERALD & SHEEHAN, P.A. The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
