The Issue The issue is whether Hialeah Hospital, Inc. may be licensed for a 21-bed psychiatric unit, without first obtaining a certificate of need, on the basis that it provided psychiatric services before a certificate of need was statutorily required.
Findings Of Fact Background of the Controversy The Parties The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (the Department) is responsible for determining whether health care projects are subject to review under the Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 381.701- 381.715, Florida Statutes. It also licenses hospitals under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. The Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities renders decisions about requests for grandfather status which would exempt a psychiatric service offered at hospital from certificate of need review. The Department's Office of Licensure and Certification issues licenses but does not grant grandfather exemptions. A hospital will not receive separate licensure for psychiatric beds unless a certificate of need has been obtained for those beds, or the beds are in a psychiatric unit which had been organized before certificate of need review was required. See Section 381.704(2), Florida Statutes (1987). A hospital can provide inpatient psychiatric services to a patient in one of three ways: a) as a patient housed among the general hospital population, b) as a patient housed in a special unit organized within the hospital and staffed by doctors, nurses and other personnel especially to serve patients with psychiatric diagnoses, or c) in a hospital organized as a psychiatric specialty hospital. Serving patients through methods b and c requires special certificate of need approval and licensure. Most community hospitals place psychiatric patients among the general patient population; few hospitals create a distinct psychiatric unit; fewer hospitals still specialize as psychiatric hospitals. Hialeah Hospital, Inc. is a 411-bed general hospital in Hialeah, Florida. It does not currently hold a certificate of need for licensure of a distinct psychiatric unit. As a result, its reimbursement for psychiatric services from the Federal government for Medicare patients is limited. The Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) generally reimburses hospitals for services based upon flat rates which are paid according to categories known as diagnostic related groups. Hialeah Hospital now receives reimbursement for services it renders to psychiatric patients on this basis. If it is entitled to a grandfather exemption from certificate of need review, and its distinct psychiatric unit is separately licensed by the Department, Hialeah Hospital will receive cost-based reimbursement for services to psychiatric patients, which will result in higher income to the hospital. Approval of the grandfathering request will not result in a) any capital expenditure by the hospital, b) the addition of staff, or c) a change in the type of services currently offered at the hospital. Just before July 1, 1983, the hospital had an average daily census of 16-17 psychiatric patients. If the psychiatric services the hospital has offered do not qualify for grandfathering, Hialeah Hospital may apply for a certificate of need for a distinct psychiatric unit. Even without a psychiatric certificate of need, Hialeah is still entitled to continue to serve patients with psychiatric diagnoses among its general population, and to receive the lower diagnostic related group reimbursement for those services from HCFA. Palmetto General Hospital is a licensed general hospital with 312 acute care beds and 48 separately licensed psychiatric short-term beds operated as a distinct psychiatric unit. It is located near Hialeah Hospital, and both hospitals serve the same geographic area. The primary markets of both hospitals overlap. They compete for patients, including psychiatric patients. Agency Action Under Review From 1973 to 1979 the license issued to Hialeah Hospital by the Department bore a designation for 21 psychiatric beds, based on information submitted in the hospital's licensure application. The hospital then dropped the psychiatric bed count from its licensure applications. This change probably was caused by a problem generated by an announcement from the Northwest Dade Community Health Center, Inc., the receiving facility for psychiatric emergencies in northwestern Dade County, which includes Hialeah. That center had written to the Hialeah Police Department, informing the police that when the center was not open, it had a crisis worker at the Hialeah Hospital emergency room, and that persons needing involuntary psychiatric hospitalization should be taken to the Hialeah Hospital emergency room. The only other hospital in Hialeah treating psychiatric patients was Palmetto General Hospital, which did not accept, as a general rule, patients who could not pay for care. The Hialeah Police Department thereafter began dropping psychiatric patients at Hialeah Hospital, much to the distress of the Hialeah Hospital emergency room staff. The Hospital thereafter dropped the designation of any of its beds as psychiatric beds on its annual licensure applications. It still received psychiatric patients from Jackson Memorial Hospital when that hospital reached its capacity for psychiatric patients. On its 1980 licensure application Hialeah Hospital collapsed all of its medical, surgical and psychiatric beds into a single figure. This was consistent with its practice of serving medical, surgical and psychiatric patients throughout the hospital. Hialeah Hospital filed similar licensure applications in 1981, 1982, 1983. In 1984 there was a dispute over the total number of beds to be licensed, which was resolved in early 1985. In 1985, after a change in the licensing statute which is discussed below, the Department informed Hialeah Hospital that its application for licensure was incomplete and could not be processed until Hialeah explained its basis for seeking separate licensure for 20 short-term psychiatric beds. In its response, Hialeah's Vice President stated: [W]e felt it was appropriate to indicate that Hialeah Hospital did accept psychiatric admissions. These patients have been randomly placed in the institution, many times based on other primary or secondary diagnoses. The application indicates bed usage, not that it is currently a discrete unit. Hialeah Hospital does currently have a Letter of Intent [on file] for establishment of a discrete med/psych unit. Hialeah Ex. 24a On August 1, 1985, the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification informed Hialeah Hospital by certified mail that the application for licensure of 20 short-term psychiatric beds was denied for failure to have obtained a certificate of need for them or to have obtained an exemption from review [both could only come from the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities]. The hospital was provided a clear point of entry to challenge this determination through a proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, but Hialeah filed no petition for review of that decision. Instead, Hialeah pursued the certificate of need application which it had filed in April, 1985 for separately licensed psychiatric beds. There was no reason to challenge the August 1, 1985, denial because the factual bases alleged by the Department were true--the hospital had no certificate of need for psychiatric beds and had not yet asked the Department's Office of Community Health Facilities to decide whether Hialeah qualified for grandfathered beds. On October 21 and 23, 1986, Hialeah Hospital wrote to the Office of Community Health Facilities seeking a determination that it was entitled to have 21 pyschiatric beds grandfathered on its license. In certificate of need application 4025 Hialeah Hospital sought the establishment of a distinct 69 bed psychiatric unit at Hialeah, with separately licensed beds. The application went to hearing and was denied on its merits on February 17, 1987, in DOAH Case 85-3998. In his recommended order, the Hearing Officer discussed the issue of whether Hialeah Hospital was exempt from certificate of need review because it already had a psychiatric unit. He found that the issue was not appropriately raised in the proceeding before him, which was Hialeah Hospital's own application for a certificate of need to establish a psychiatric unit. He therefore found he lacked jurisdiction to consider the grandfathering issue. Hialeah Hospital v. HRS, 9 FALR 2363, 2397, paragraph 5 (HRS 1987). The Department adopted that ruling in its May 1, 1987, final order. Id. at 2365. A letter dated December 5, 1986, from the Office of Community Medical Facilities denied Hialeah's request to grandfather 21 short-term psychiatric beds on its license and thereby exempt them from certificate of need review, as requested in Hialeah's letters of October 21 and 23, 1986. The Department denied the grandfathering request for four reasons: When the Department conducted a physical plant survey on June 1, 1980, there were no psychiatric beds in operation at the hospital; The hospital bed count verification form returned to the Department on January 31, 1984 by the Director of Planning for Hialeah, Gene Samnuels, indicated that the hospital had no psychiatric beds; An inventory of psychiatric beds had been published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 17, 1984 which showed that Hialeah Hospital had no psychiatric beds, and Hialeah never contested that inventory; The Department had not received evidence demonstrating that psychiatric services were provided "in a separately set up and staffed unit between 1980 and 1985." This letter again gave Hialeah a point of entry to challenge the Department's decision to deny licensure of psychiatric beds and it was the genesis of Hialeah's petition initiating this case. It is significant that the Department's Office of Community Health Facilities gave Hialeah a clear point of entry to challenge the December 5, 1986, grandfathering denial with full knowledge that the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification had denied a request from Hialeah Hospital on August 1, 1985, to endorse psychiatric beds on Hialeah's 1985 license. The Departmental personnel knew that those two denials involved different issues. Once the Office of Licensure and Certification told the hospital it had to produce either a certificate of need or a grandfathering approval to have psychiatric beds endorsed on its license, the hospital had to turn to the Office of Community Health Facilities to get a ruling on its grandfathering claim. The letter of December 5, 1986, was the first ruling on the merits of Hialeah Hospital's claim that it was entitled to have 21 beds grandfathered. History of the Department's Specialty Bed Recognition Psychiatric Beds in Florida Hospitals Before July 1, 1983 Before April 1, 1983 no state statute or Department rule required that psychiatric beds in a hospital be located in physically distinct units. Psychiatric patients could be located throughout a hospital. They were not required to be placed in rooms having distinguishing characteristics, or to use group therapy rooms, dining rooms, or other rooms exclusively dedicated to use by psychiatric patients. There were, of course, hospitals that had distinct psychiatric units, and some entire hospitals which were specifically licensed as psychiatric hospitals. After 1983, a hospital had to obtain a certificate of need to organize what had previously been diffuse psychiatric services into a distinct unit dedicated to serving patients with psychiatric diagnoses. Today no special certificate of need is required to serve psychiatric patients in the general hospital population, but without separate licensure the hospital receives Medicare reimbursement from the federal government for psychiatric patients at the level established by the diagnostic related groups, not cost based reimbursement. Before July 1, 1983 annual hospital licensure application forms asked hospitals to identify their number of psychiatric beds as an item of information. The hospital licenses issued, however, were based on the hospital's total number of general medical-surgical beds, a category which included psychiatric beds. The 1983 Amendments to the Florida Statutes and the Department's Rules on Specialty Beds In April of 1983, the Department adopted a rule which established a separate need methodology for short-term psychiatric beds, Rule 10-5.11(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, the Legislature amended the statutes governing the hospital licensing, Section 395.003, Florida Statutes (1983) by adding a new subsection (4) which read: The Department shall issue a license which specifies the number of hospital beds on the face of the license. The number of beds for the rehabilitation or psychiatric service category for which the Department has adopted by rule a specialty bed need methodology under s. 381.494 shall be specified on the face of the hospital license. All beds which are not covered by any specialty bed need methodology shall be specified as general beds. Section 4, Chapter 83-244, Laws of Florida (underlined language was added). In the same Act, the Legislature amended the planning law to require hospitals to apply for certificates of need to change their number of psychiatric and rehabilitation beds. Section 2, Chapter 83-244, Laws of Florida, codified as Section 381.494(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983). The Department's rules defined short-term psychiatric services as: [A] category of services which provide a 24- hour a day therapeutic milieu for persons suffering from mental health problems which are so severe and acute that they need intensive, full-time care. Acute psychiatric inpatient care is defined as a service not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. Rule 10- 5.11(25)(a), Florida Administrative Code (1983), effective April 7, 1983. A minimum size for any new psychiatric unit was prescribed in Rule 10- 5.11(25)(d)7., which states: 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. After the effective date of the rule, April 7, 1983, no hospital could organize its psychiatric services into a distinct psychiatric unit using specialized staff unless the unit would have at least 15 beds. This did not mean that a hospital which already had organized a distinct psychiatric unit using specialized staff had to have at least 15 beds in its unit to continue operation. Whatever the number of beds, whether fewer or greater than 15, that number had to appear on the face of the hospital's license. Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes (1983). To change that number, the hospital had to go through the certificate of need process. Section 381.494(1)(g) Florida Statutes (1983). Those hospitals whose pre-existing units were endorsed on their licenses can be said to have had those units "grandfathered". There is no specific statutory exemption from certificate of need review for pre-existing units, but such treatment is implicit in the regulatory scheme. The Department's Grandfather Review Process To know which hospitals were entitled to continue to operate discrete psychiatric units without obtaining a certificate of need, the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities had to identify hospitals which had separate psychiatric units before the July 1, 1983, effective date of Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes (1983). An inventory of beds in the existing psychiatric units also was necessary to process new certificate of need applications. The Department's rule methodology authorized additional beds in psychiatric units based upon a projected need of 15 beds per 10,000 population. Rule 10-5.11(25)(d)1., Florida Administrative Code (1983). The Legislature approved the psychiatric service categories which the Department had already adopted by rule when it enacted Section 4 of Chapter 83- 244, Laws of Florida. The Legislature thereby validated a process the Department had initiated in 1976 with its Task Force on Institutional Needs. That group had developed methodologies to be used throughout the state to determine the need for different types of medical services, because local health systems agencies were reviewing CON applications based upon idiosyncratic methodologies. To develop review criteria for psychiatric services, the Task Force had to both define psychiatric services and determine how it should measure them. In doing so, the Department looked for assistance to publications of entities such as the American Hospital Association and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. According to the American Hospital Association, psychiatric services are services delivered in beds set up and staffed in units specifically designated for psychiatric services. In the Task Force report, a psychiatric bed was defined as: A bed in a clinical care unit located in a short-term, acute care hospital or psychiatric hospital which is not used to provide long-term institutional care and which is suitably equipped and staffed to provide evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of persons with emotional disturbances. An inpatient care unit or clinical care unit is a group of inpatient beds and related facilities and assigned personnel in which care is provided to a defined and limited class of patients according to their particular care needs. HRS Exhibit 14 at 92 and 1-5. The definition of a psychiatric bed in the Report of the Department Task Force on Institutional Needs is compatible with the requirements of the Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board in its Florida Hospital Uniform Reporting Manual. Reports made by hospitals to the Hospital Cost Containment Board include information about services provided in separately organized, staffed and equipped hospital units. The information provided to the Board assisted the Department in determining which Florida hospitals already were providing psychiatric services in separately organized, staffed and equipped hospital units before separate licensure became necessary. The Department surveyed hospitals to determine the number of existing beds in distinct psychiatric units. It also looked to old certificates of need which referenced psychiatric services at hospitals, reports hospitals had made to the Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board, to past licensure applications the Department had received from hospitals, and to the Department's 1980 physical plant survey. These sources of information were, however, imperfect, for the reasons which follow: 1. Certificates of Need Issued 22. Before July 1, 1983, certificates of need were required for the initiation of new services which involved capital expenditures above a certain threshold dollar amount. Hospitals which had a long-standing psychiatric units would have had no occasion to request a certificate of need for psychiatric services. Review of certificates issued would not turn up a hospital with a mature psychiatric service. 2. Hospital Cost Containment Board Information 23. The reports from hospitals during the early years of the Hospital Cost Containment Board are not entirely reliable, because the hospitals did not yet have uniform accounting systems in place, despite the Board's attempt to establish uniform accounting methods through its reporting system manual. Hospitals commonly made errors in their reports. If the reports were prepared correctly, they would identify hospitals with discrete psychiatric units. Hialeah's HCCB Reports for 1981, 1982 and 1983 indicated that the hospital had no active psychiatric staff, no psychiatric beds and no psychiatric services. 3. Departmental Survey Letters 24. In Spring, 1983, the Department tried to verify the existing inventory of beds for specialty services such as psychiatric services, comprehensive medical rehabilitation services and substance abuse services. There is no record, however, that this survey letter was sent to Hialeah Hospital. In late 1983 or early 1984, the Department again attempted to establish inventories for psychiatric beds and rehabilitation beds. It distributed a cover letter and a form entitled "Hospital Bed Count Verification", which asked hospitals to confirm the Department's preliminary count of the hospital's "number of licensed beds". Hialeah's planner returned the form verifying that Hialeah Hospital was licensed for 411 "acute general" beds and that it had no short or long term psychiatric beds. The answer was correct, for that is the figure which appeared on Hialeah's license at that time. The Department did not ask the hospitals for an average daily census of short-term psychiatric patients. The cover letter for the survey form told hospital administrators that the Department was seeking to verify its preliminary bed count for services for which a special bed need methodology had been established, viz., long and short term psychiatric beds, substance abuse beds and comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds. The cover letter drew attention to the Department's intention to use the data collected from the responses to the form as a beginning inventory for short-term psychiatric beds. The cover letter also cautioned hospitals that when completing the form, they should "keep in mind the service definitions". Copies of the definitions were attached to the form. The appropriate inference to be drawn from the answer given by Hialeah Hospital to the survey form was that in January, 1984, the hospital had no beds organized into a short term psychiatric unit. This is consistent with the later letter from the hospital's vice president quoted in Finding of Fact 6, above. The Department published on February 17, 1984, its base inventory of psychiatric and rehabilitation beds in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The publication stated that "any hospital wishing to change the number of beds dedicated to one of the specific bed types listed will first be required to obtain a certificate of need." 10 Florida Administrative Weekly at 493. Hialeah was shown as having no psychiatric beds. Id. at 498. The notice did not specifically inform the hospitals of the right to petition for a formal hearing to challenge the inventory figures published. 4. Licensure Files 25. Although, the Department's licensure application form listed "psychiatric" as a possible hospital bed utilization category before 1983, these categories were set up for informational purposes only. No definitions were given to hospitals describing how beds should be allocated among the categories available on the form, making those figures unreliable. Before 1980 Hialeah Hospital had listed psychiatric beds on its licensure applications, see Finding of Fact 5, above. Since 1980 it listed no psychiatric beds. 5. Physical Plant Survey The Department performed a physical plant survey in 1980 to determine the total number of beds in service at each hospital. That survey did not attempt to make distinctions between different types of services listed on the survey form. The Department's architect who performed the survey did not attempt to evaluate the quality or intensity of the psychiatric services provided at any hospital. Each of the types of information the Department examined to determine the existing inventory of short-term psychiatric beds in 1983 had weaknesses, and no single source is dispositive. It is difficult to credit the assertion that Hialeah Hospital had a distinct psychiatric unit before July, 1983 which was not reflected in any of these sources of information. The use of multiple sources of information served as a cross-check on information from each source. It is understandable that Hialeah would not have applied for a certificate of need to operate a separate psychiatric unit. Before 1983, no such application was needed if the establishment of the unit entailed an expenditure of money below a threshold amount. All of its reports to the Hospital Cost Containment Board, however, indicate that there was no separate psychiatric service at the hospital and that the hospital had no active psychiatric staff. With respect to the Department's survey letters, while the 1984 survey form itself did not specifically inform hospital administrators that their responses would be used to establish a base inventory of psychiatric beds, the cover letter did make that clear. This should have put the hospital's planner, who filled out the form, on notice that if Hialeah had a discrete, short-term psychiatric service the number of beds in that unit should be listed. What is perhaps the most significant point is that the hospital reported no psychiatric beds on its licensure application at all from 1980 to 1985. Medical doctors in general practice can and do treat psychiatric patients, in addition to doctors who specialize in psychiatry. No doubt patients commonly were admitted to the hospital who had primary diagnoses of psychiatric illnesses. The hospital's licensure filings, however, since 1979 fail to record any psychiatric beds. This is important evidence that the hospital did not regard itself as having any distinct unit organized to provide psychiatric care. The Hospital's 1985 correspondence from the Hospital's vice president to the Department, quoted in Finding of Fact 6 confirms this. The failure to list any psychiatric beds at Hialeah on the Department's 1980 physical plant survey is not significant, since determining the number of psychiatric beds was not the focus of that survey. It is true that the Department never conducted site visits at all hospitals to determine whether they had a) distinct psychiatric units, b) psychiatric medical directors, c) written psychiatric admission and treatment policies, or d) psychiatric policy and procedures manuals. The efforts the Department did make to establish the beginning inventory of psychiatric beds were reasonable, however Hialeah Hospital's Licensure History and Efforts to Obtain Grandfather Status The entries on Hialeah's applications for annual licensure from the Department are cataloged above, and need not be repeated. During the years 1980-84, after it ceased listing psychiatric beds on its licensure application, psychiatric services were still being provided to patients throughout the hospital. In 1984, the hospital engaged in correspondence with the Department over the appropriate number of licensed beds for the hospital as a whole. Ultimately the hospital and the Department agreed that 411 beds should be licensed. In its 1985 licensure application, Hialeah then requested that 20 short-term psychiatric beds be listed on the license. The Office of Licensure and Certification questioned this. Ultimately, the Office of Licensure and Certification refused to endorse those 20 psychiatric beds on the license because there was no certificate of need on file for them, nor any statement from the Office of Community Medical Facilities granting the hospital an exemption from that licensure requirement. Hialeah Hospital did not challenge that decision in a proceeding under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The discussions between the hospital and the Department's Office of Community Medical Facilities continued, and by late October, 1986, Hialeah requested the Department to approve 21 short-term psychiatric beds at the facility, and sent the Department backup material which it believed justified a grandfather determination. After review, the Department denied the grandfather request by letter dated December 5, 1986. The Department's Action Regarding Other Grandfathering Requests Hialeah's is not the first request the Department received for grandfathering beds. After June of 1983, when the Legislature required CON approval for hospitals to change their number of psychiatric or rehabilitation beds, a number of institutions made similar requests. 1. Comprehensive Medical Rehabilitation Beds The rule on comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds was developed by the Department at the same time as the rule on psychiatric beds. The Department used a similar process to determine the existing inventory of both types of beds. The Department determined that preexisting comprehensive medical rehabilitation units at Parkway General Hospital, Naples Community Hospital, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Holy Cross Hospital, and University Community Hospital entitled those facilities to grandfathering of their comprehensive medical rehabilitation services. The Department has also determined that a preexisting distinct psychiatric unit at Palmetto General Hospital entitled that institution to grandfather status for its psychiatric beds. Parkway General Parkway General Hospital did not specify rehabilitation beds on its licensure applications for the years 1980 through 1984. The Department denied Parkway's request for endorsement of 12 comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds on its 1985 license because Parkway had not obtained a certificate of need for them or an exemption from review. The Department thereafter determined that Parkway had been providing comprehensive medical rehabilitation services before June, 1983 in a physically distinct and separately staffed unit consisting of 12 beds. It then endorsed 12 beds on Parkway's license, even though the rule which became effective in July, 1983 would require a minimum unit size of 20 beds for any hospital organizing a new comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit. See Rule 10-5.011(24), Florida Administrative Code. Naples Community Hospital The Department granted Naples Community Hospital a grandfather exemption for its rehabilitation beds in February, 1987. In had not listed the rehabilitation beds on its license application for the years 1983-1985, had not returned the Department's bed count verification form, nor did it challenge the bed count which the Department published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The hospital had applied for and received a certificate of need in January of 1981 to establish a 22-bed rehabilitation unit and that unit began operation in late 1982. The Department ultimately determined that the hospital had provided rehabilitation services in a physically distinct unit and the services were organized and delivered in a manner consistent with applicable regulatory standards. It granted a grandfather request in February, 1987. Orlando Regional Medical Center A grandfather exemption for 16 rehabilitation beds was granted to Orlando Medical Center in 1986. The 16-bed brain injury unit had been authorized by the Department through certificate of need number 2114 before the Department had adopted its rule governing comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds in 1983. The services were provided in a physically distinct unit. The Department determined the 20-bed minimum size for a new unit did not apply to a unit which qualified for grandfathering. Holy Cross Hospital The Department granted a grandfather exemption for comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds to Holy Cross Hospital after a proceeding was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings to require the Department to recognize the existence of a 20-bed comprehensive medical rehabilitation center. The Department determined by a site visit that Holy Cross had established a separate unit, probably in 1974, long before the Department's comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit rule became effective in July, 1983. The unit had its own policy manual, quality assurance reports, patient screening criteria, and minutes of multidisciplinary team staff conferences. The hospital had neglected to report the unit in its filings with the Hospital Cost Containment Board but the hospital contended that it never treated the unit as a separate unit for accounting purposes, and had not understood the need to report the unit as a distinct one under Hospital Cost Containment Board reporting guidelines. The hospital corrected its reporting oversight. The grandfathering is consistent with the hospital's actual establishment of the unit long before the Department's rules went into effect. University Community Hospital A dispute over whether to grandfather a comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit which went through a Chapter 120 administrative hearing and entry of a final order involved University Community Hospital (UCH). The Department initially determined that the nine comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds at UCH had been in existence before July, 1983 and were exempt from certificate of need review. That decision was challenged in a formal administrative proceeding by a competing hospital, Tampa General. The competitor was successful, for both the Hearing Officer in the recommended order and the Department in the final order determined that University Community Hospital's 9 bed rehabilitation unit was not entitled to be grandfathered. University Community Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 11 FALR 1150 (HRS Feb. 14, 1989). In determining that grandfathering was inappropriate, the Department found that the hospital had not prepared separate policies and procedures for its rehabilitation unit before the rule on comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds became effective, and that the unit did not have a physical therapy room on the same floor as the patients. The beds supposedly dedicated to rehabilitative care were mixed with non- rehabilitative beds, so that a semiprivate room might have one bed used for rehabilitative care and another for an unrelated type of care. This conflicted with the requirement that the rehabilitation unit be physically distinct, with all patients and support services located on the same area or floor, rather than scattered throughout the hospital. The Department also determined that many hospitals offer physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech therapy, but that to qualify as a comprehensive medical rehabilitation center, these services had to be coordinated in a multidisciplinary approach to the patient's needs, which had not been the case at University Community Hospital. The common strand running through the grandfathering decisions on comprehensive medical rehabilitation beds is that grandfathering is appropriate when a hospital demonstrates that before the comprehensive medical rehabilitation rule became effective in July, 1983, it had a separate unit which met the standards and criteria for a comprehensive medical rehabilitation unit (other than the minimum size for new units). Psychiatric Beds Tampa General Hospital Only two cases involve a decision on whether psychiatric services at a hospital qualify for grandfathering. Tampa General Hospital, which was owned by the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, operated 93 psychiatric beds in 1981, 71 at Hillsborough County Hospital and 22 at Tampa General Hospital. A certificate of need granted in 1981 authorized the expenditure of $127,310,000 for the consolidation of both hospitals and an overall reduction of 14 psychiatric beds after the hospitals were integrated. When the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority obtained its certificate of need, it was not necessary to differentiate between general acute care beds and psychiatric beds for licensure purposes. Increased demand for acute care beds led Tampa General to close its psychiatric unit and make those 22 beds available for ordinary acute care. After the 1983 statutory and rule changes regarding the separate licensure of psychiatric beds, the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority told the Department that Tampa General had no psychiatric beds in operation. On its 1985 licensure application, the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority applied for licensure for 22 psychiatric beds at Tampa General and 77 at Hillsborough Hospital. The Department denied the request for the psychiatric beds at Tampa General. The Final Order entered in Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. HRS, 8 FALR 1409 (Feb. 16, 1986), determined that there had been a discontinuation in the use of psychiatric beds at Tampa General, and that to allow Tampa General to add psychiatric beds after the statutory and rule changes in 1983 would frustrate the certificate of need process and would be detrimental to good health care planning. Palmetto General Hospital Palmetto General Hospital participated in an administrative hearing in 1975 regarding the disapproval of its proposed expansion, which included the dedication of one floor and 48 beds as a psychiatric unit. The Hearing Officer found that there was a need for psychiatric beds in the community and recommended that the Secretary of the Department issue a certificate of need "for that portion of the applicant's proposed capital expenditures relating to the addition of a 48 bed psychiatric unit". Palmetto General Exhibit 32, at 12, paragraph 2. The order of the Hearing Officer was affirmed by the District Court of Appeal in Palmetto General Hospital, Inc. v. Department of HRS, 333 So.2d 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The approval of the 48 psychiatric beds is clear only from a review of the Hearing Officer's order. Certificate of Need 292X was issued for the 48 psychiatric beds. Palmetto General exhibit 45. Palmetto received Medicare certification for its psychiatric inpatient unit, and listed 48 short-term psychiatric beds on its licensure applications each year from 1979 to 1983. It failed to show its psychiatric beds on the bed count verification survey form sent by the Department. Palmetto General's chief financial officer told the Department on June 10, 1983 that Palmetto General did not have psychiatric beds in a separately organized and staffed unit. This resulted in the issuance of a license which showed no psychiatric beds. The Department itself wrote to the administrator of Palmetto to learn why the 48 short-term psychiatric beds had not been listed on Palmetto's application for licensure in 1985. Palmetto wrote back and acknowledged that it did have 48 short-term psychiatric beds. A license showing those 48 beds was then issued. Thereafter, staff from the HRS Office of Comprehensive Health Planning took the position that the 48 short-term psychiatric beds should not have been listed on the license, and the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification requested that the 1985 license containing the endorsement for those 48 psychiatric beds be returned to the Department for cancellation. Palmetto then sought an administrative hearing on the attempted cancellation of the license. Palmetto and the Department entered into a Final Order dated March 9, 1986 which agreed that Palmetto met all the requirements for the designation of 48 short-term psychiatric beds on its license. Palmetto, had, in fact, operated a 48 bed psychiatric unit on its third floor since 1981, but moved that unit to the sixth floor in 1985. It was dedicated exclusively to psychiatric patients and there were specific policy and procedure manuals developed and used in dealing with psychiatric patients since 1981. The history of Palmetto's licensure is certainly one replete with contradictions. It is inexplicable that the chief financial officer of the hospital would have told the Department in 1983 that it had no separately organized and staffed psychiatric unit when, in fact, it had such a unit. It was also unclear why it would have shown no psychiatric beds on the bed count verification form returned in late December or early January, 1984, or why its April, 1983, and its 1985/1986 license application forms listed no psychiatric beds. Nonetheless, it had obtained a certificate of need for a psychiatric unit after administrative litigation and an appeal to the District Court of Appeal. The unit was opened and remained continuously in existence. It had appropriate policies and procedures in place for a distinct psychiatric unit as the 1983 statutory and rule amendments required for separate licensure of psychiatric beds. History of Psychiatric Bed Services at Hialeah Hospital Since at least 1958, Hialeah Hospital has had psychiatrists on its medical staff, and the number of psychiatric physicians on staff has increased. Thirteen psychiatrists had admitting privileges at the hospital by 1983; there are now 23 psychiatrists with privileges. As is true with most community hospitals, physicians specializing in psychiatry would admit patients to the general population at Hialeah Hospital if they needed intensive psychotherapy or medication which needed to be monitored by nurses. Patients who were homicidal, suicidal or intensely psychotic were not admitted to Hialeah Hospital. Those patients need a more intensive psychiatric environment, either in a locked psychiatric unit or in a psychiatric specialty hospital. The persons physicians placed at Hialeah through 1983 did not need the intensive services of a discrete psychiatric unit. Hialeah Hospital indicated on its licensure application to the Department that it had 21 psychiatric beds throughout the 1970's, but ceased this listing in the 1980's as set forth in Finding of Fact 5 above. The nature of the services available at the hospital had remained constant. Under the psychiatric diagnosis coding system published in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual III, (which is commonly used by psychiatrists) Hialeah Hospital had an average daily census of 25 patients with primary or secondary psychiatric diagnoses in 1980, and 18 in 1981. Only about 25 percent of those patients had a primary psychiatric discharge diagnosis. The additional patients had secondary psychiatric diagnoses. Hialeah must rely on these secondary diagnoses to argue that its average daily census for psychiatric patients approached 21 beds. It was not until 1985 that Hialeah consolidated its psychiatric services to a medical/psychiatric unit. That unit serves patients with medical and psychiatric diagnosis as well as patients with solely psychiatric diagnoses. Before 1983, there was no medical director of psychiatry at Hialeah Hospital, and no separate policies and procedures for the admission of patients to a psychiatric unit, nor any staff dedicated to the care of psychiatric patients. To be sure, the hospital was in a position to provide quality psychiatric care to patients whose needs were psychotherapy, monitored medication, or individual counseling by psychiatric physicians and nurses. This reflects the reality that not all patients who need to be placed in the hospital for psychiatric care require the services of a separate medical/psychiatric unit. Patients with more acute psychiatric illness do need interdisciplinary approaches to their care. These interdisciplinary approaches are more expensive than serving psychiatric patients in the general hospital population. This is why the Federal government provides higher, cost-based reimbursement to the hospitals with specialty psychiatric licenses. Hialeah has not proven that the psychiatric services it was providing before 1983 were significantly different from those provided in typical community hospitals which did not have distinct psychiatric units. Hialeah's long-standing relationship with the Northwest Community Mental Health Center is not especially significant. Certainly, the Center was aware that Hialeah was a potential source of psychiatric care. Baker Act patients who needed hospitalization were taken there between 1980 and 1983. There was a flow of patients back and forth between the Center and the hospital's inpatient population, and discharge plans by Hialeah's social workers included referrals back to the Mental Health Center for follow-up and outpatient care. Similarly, the Dade-Monroe Mental Health Board knew that Hialeah was a potential provider of inpatient psychiatric services. The predecessor to the current local health council, the health systems agency of South Florida, recorded that there were psychiatric admissions at Hialeah Hospital in the early 1980's, and the health systems agency recommended a conversion of existing beds to psychiatric services because of a need for additional psychiatric services in the area. None of this, however, means that Hialeah had operated a distinct psychiatric unit before 1983 which entitles it to grandfather status.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application of Hialeah Hospital for grandfather status for 21 short-term psychiatric beds, and the inclusion of those short-term psychiatric beds on its license and on the Department's bed inventory be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY 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 6th day of October, 1989.
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 Which, if any, of the four certificate of need applications for short-term psychiatric beds in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 9 should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Description of the Parties The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") is the agency charged under Chapter 381, Florida Statutes (1991), to make decisions regarding certificate of need ("CON") applications. HRS issued its intent to approve the CON applications of Glenbeigh Hospital of Palm Beach, Inc. ("Glenbeigh"), for 45 beds, and Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. ("Boca"), for 15 beds, pursuant to a published fixed need for 67 beds for HRS District IX. HRS also issued its intent to deny the CON applications of Wellington Regional Medical Center, Incorporation ("Wellington") to convert 15 acute care beds to 15 short term adult psychiatric beds, and Savannas Hospital Limited Partnership ("Savannas") to convert 20 substance abuse beds to 20 short term adult psychiatric beds and to add 10 new short term adult beds. District IX includes Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Okeechobee and Indian River Counties. As a result of Glenbeigh's Notice of Withdrawal filed on April 6, 1993, CON No. 6438 is no longer under consideration in this case. Boca is an existing 394-bed acute care hospital, located one mile north of the Broward County line, and is the applicant for CON No. 6442, to convert 15 medical/surgical beds to 15 adult psychiatric beds, and to delicense an additional 6 medical/surgical beds. Wellington is an existing acute care hospital in Palm Beach County, with 104 acute care medical/surgical beds and 16 substance abuse beds, and is the applicant for CON No. 6441 to convert 15 acute care beds to 15 short term adult psychiatric beds. Savannas is an existing 70 bed child/adolescent and adult psychiatric and substance abuse hospital in St. Lucie County, about 40 miles north of Palm Beach, and is the applicant for CON No. 6444, to convert its 20 substance abuse beds to 20 adult short-term psychiatric beds, and to add 10 new adult short-term psychiatric beds. Lake Hospital and Clinic, Inc., d/b/a Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches ("Lake"), at the time of hearing, was a 98-bed psychiatric and substance abuse hospital, with 46 adult psychiatric beds, 36 child/adolescent psychiatric beds and 16 substance abuse beds, located in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, between Boca Raton and West Palm Beach. The parties stipulated that Lake had standing to challenge the Boca application. Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, Inc., d/b/a Humana Hospital Palm Beaches ("Humana") is an existing 250-bed acute care hospital, with 61 adult and 27 child/adolescent psychiatric beds, and is a Baker Act receiving facility, located directly across the street from Glenbeigh in Palm Beach. Florida Residential Treatment Centers, Inc., d/b/a Charter Hospital of West Palm Beach ("Charter") is an existing 60-bed psychiatric hospital with 20 beds for children and 40 beds for adolescents, located approximately 15 minutes travel time from Glenbeigh. Martin H.M.A., Inc., d/b/a SandyPines Hospital ("SandyPines") is an existing 60 bed child and adolescent psychiatric hospital, and a Baker Act receiving facility, located in Martin County, less than one mile north of the Palm Beach County line. By prehearing stipulation, the parties agreed that the statutory review criteria applicable to the CON application of Boca are those listed in Subsections 381.705(1)(a), (b), (d), (f), (i) - (l) and (n). If Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o) is applicable, the parties stipulated that the disputed criteria are those in Subsections 4.g. and 5.g. Background and Applicability of HRS Rules and Florida Statutes Rule 10-5.011(o) and (p), Florida Administrative Code, was in effect at the time HRS published the fixed need pool and received the applications at issue in this proceeding, the September 1990 batching cycle. The rule distinguished between inpatient psychiatric services based on whether the services were provided on a short-term or long-term basis. Similarly, Rule 10- 5.011(q), Florida Administrative Code, distinguished between short-term and long-term hospital inpatient substance abuse services. On August 10, 1990, HRS published a fixed need pool for 19 short-term psychiatric beds in HRS District IX, with notice of the right to seek an administrative hearing to challenge the correctness of the fixed need pool number. See, Vol. 16, No. 32, Florida Administrative Weekly. On August 17, 1990, HRS published a revised fixed need pool for a net need of 67 additional short-term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds in HRS District IX, based on the denial of a certificate of need application, subsequent to the deadline for submission of the August 10th publication. The local health plan formula, which has not been adopted by rule, allocates 62 of the additional 67 beds needed to the Palm Beach County subdistrict. The revised pool publication did not include notice of the right to an administrative hearing to challenge the revised pool number. See, Vol. 16, No. 33, Florida Administrative Weekly. There were no challenges filed to either the original or revised fixed need pool numbers. On December 23, 1990, HRS published new psychiatric and substance abuse rules, subsequently renumbered as Rule 10-5.040 and 10-5.041, Florida Administrative Code. These new rules abolished the distinction between short- term and long-term services, and instead distinguished psychiatric and substance abuse services by the age of the patient. Pursuant to Section 14 of the new psychiatric rule, that rule does not apply to applications pending final agency action on the effective date of the new rule. HRS will, however, license any applicant approved from the September 1990 batching cycle to provide services to adults or children and adolescents, using the categories in the new rule, not based on the distinction between short and long term services which existed at the time the application was filed. Approved providers will receive separate CONs for adult and child/adolescent services. Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the fixed need pool shall be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly at least 15 days prior to the letter of intent deadline and . . . shall not be changed or adjusted in the future regardless of any future changes in need methodologies, population estimates, bed inventories, or other factors which would lead to different projections of need, if retroactively applied. Humana, Lake, Charter and SandyPines allege that HRS incorrectly determined need under the old rule, by failing to examine occupancy rates pursuant to that rule. The rule provided, in relevant part, 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 percent 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 percent 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 percent or greater for the preceding year. (Emphasis added.) Rule 10-5.011(o)4(e), Florida Administrative Code. HRS' expert witness, Elizabeth Dudek, testified that the fixed need pool for 67 additional short term inpatient psychiatric beds was calculated pursuant to the formula in Rule 10-5.011(l)(o), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Dudek also testified that since calculation resulted in a positive number, according to HRS policy, the publication of the fixed need pool indicates that the occupancy prerequisites must have also been met. To the contrary, the State Agency Action Report and the deposition of Lloyd Tribley, the HRS Health Facilities consultant who collected the data to support the publication of the fixed need pool, indicate that he did not determine existing occupancy separately for adults and for children/adolescents, as required by subsection (e) of the old rule. Rather, he determined, pursuant to subsection (f), that overall occupancy rates for licensed short-term psychiatric beds exceeded 75 percent. With the August 10, 1990 publication of the need for 19 additional short-term inpatient psychiatric beds, HRS provided a point of entry to challenge the published need, including the agency's apparent failure to make a determination of existing occupancy rates for separate age categories. No challenge was filed. In the August 17, 1990 publication, HRS failed to provide a point of entry, when it added 48 more beds to the pool as a result of the issuance of a final order denying a prior CON application. The August 10th publication of numeric need, according to HRS' representative should have been based on an analysis of separate and combined occupancy rates. There was no challenge to that publication, therefore the number of beds in the fixed need pool is not at issue in this proceeding. Like and Existing Facilities Humana, Lake and Charter assert that, as a result of the new rule abolishing separate licensure categories for short-term and long-term beds, all psychiatric providers within an applicant's service district are like and existing facilities. These parties also assert that there was not, even under the old rule, any practical difference between these categories of providers, particularly for children/adolescents. In support of this position, the evidence demonstrated that the average lengths of stay in short-term and long- term adolescent psychiatric beds in 1989 were 48.1 days and 53.02 days, respectively. In 1990, the average lengths of stay in short and long-term beds were 41.8 days and 41.9 days, respectively. The parties asserting that the effect of the new rule is to create an additional group of like and existing providers point to HRS' response to the application of Indian River Memorial Hospital in Vero Beach, Florida ("Indian River"). According to the testimony of HRS expert witness Elizabeth Dudek, Indian River was another District 9 applicant in this same batching cycle. Indian River applied for a CON to convert long-term psychiatric beds to short- term psychiatric beds. HRS denied the CON application of Indian River because, under the new rule, which had taken effect before the decisions on the batch were made, Indian River would receive a new license permitting it to treat psychiatric patients regardless of their projected lengths of stay. Glenbeigh asserted that the numeric need for 67 additional short term psychiatric beds cannot be challenged in this proceeding based on the failure of any party timely to challenge the August 10, 1990, publication of need. Similarly, Glenbeigh asserted that the comparison of "like and existing" facilities must be limited to those used in the inventory to compute need. Glenbeigh relied generally on Florida Administrative Code Rule 10-5.011(o), the old rule governing short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services, for the proposition that "like and existing" in Subsection 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes, is equivalent to the inventory of licensed and approved beds for short term psychiatric services, which was used in the computation of need. However, the rule also provides, in a list of "other standards and criteria to be considered in determining approval of a certificate of need application for short term hospital inpatient psychiatric beds," the following, Applicants shall indicate the availability of other inpatient psychiatric services in the proposed service area, including the number of beds available in crisis stabilization units, short term residential treatment programs, and other inpatient beds whether licensed as a hospital facility or not. In light of the rule directive that the consideration of like and existing services is not limited to licensed provider hospitals, Glenbeigh's assertion that the statutory review criteria is more restrictive and limited to the licensed and approved beds that were used to compute numeric need is rejected. The like and existing facilities are the hospitals or freestanding facilities which are authorized to provide the same psychiatric services, as the applicants seek to provide as a result of this proceeding. It was established at hearing that the following list of District 9 facilities provide psychiatric services comparable to those which the three remaining applicants seek to provide in these consolidated cases: DISTRICT 9 Hospital PSYCHIATRIC BEDS SUBSTANCE ABUSE BEDS Adult Child and Adult Child and Adolescent Adolescent Lic. App. Lic. App. Lic. App. Lic. App. Bethesda Hospital 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charter Palm (IRTF) 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 Fair Oaks 36 0 49 0 14 0 3 0 Forty Fifth Street 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Glenbeigh Palm Beach 0 0 0 0 30 0 30 0 Humana Palm Beach 61 0 27 15 0 0 0 0 Humana Sebastian 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Indian River Mem. 16 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 J.F. Kennedy Mem. 14 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 Lake Hospital 46 0 36 0 16 0 0 0 Lawnwood Regional 36 Res. Treat. Palm 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 (IRTF) 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 Sandy Pines 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 Savannas 35 0 15 0 20 0 0 0 St. Mary Hospital 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wellington Regional 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 Vol. 16, No. 52, Florida Administrative Weekly, (December 28, 1990) (Humana Exhibit 26). Need For Additional Beds An analysis of need beyond that of the numeric need, requires an analysis of the availability and accessibility of the like and existing facilties. One reliable indicator of need is the occupancy levels in the like and existing facilities. In addition to providing guidelines for the publication of need, Rule 10-5.011(o)(4)(e) also mandates a consideration of occupancy levels to determine if applicants are or are not required to demonstrate "not normal circumstances" necessitating the issuance of a CON. For all child/adolescent psychiatric programs in District 9, the expert for Lake and Humana calculated total average occupancy rates at 57.6 percent in 1988, 64.2 percent in 1989, and 53.2 percent in 1990. In support of the accuracy of the expert's calculations, the District 9 Annual Report for 1990 (Lake Exhibit 4) shows occupancy at 46.80 percent in general hospitals, 88.22 percent in specialty hospitals then categorized as short term and 38.22 percent in specialty hospitals then categorized as long term. In addition, during this same period of time, average lengths of stay in District 9 child/adolescent beds also declined by approximately 10 percent. Using the guidelines of the old rule, new short term psychiatric beds should not normally be approved when the child/adolescent rate is below 70 percent. In the new rule, child/adolescent beds should not normally be approved if occupancy is below 75 percent. Therefore, under either rule, applicants who will be licensed for child/adolescent beds, must demonstrate not normal circumstances for their CON applications to be approved. The expert for Lake and Humana, also computed the adult occupancy rates for 1988-1990 in District 9 as follows: 1988- 66.5 percent; 1989 - 73.1 percent; 1990 - 68.5 percent. The occupancy rates for adult beds for the 12- month period ending March, 1990 was 70.6 percent and 69.2 percent for the twelve months ending June, 1990. In evaluating the accuracy of the expert's calculations of occupancy rates for adult beds, a comparison can be made to the District 9 Annual Report for 1990 (Lake Exhibit 4). Occupancy rates were 57.75 percent in general hospitals and 79.45 percent in specialty hospitals. This data does not include Indian River Memorial or Lawnwood Regional which were also listed on the December 1990 inventory of licensed adult beds, nor St. Mary's Hospital which was listed as having 40 approved adult beds. The comparison indicates the accuracy of concluding that the highest occupancy level for District 9 adult psychiatric beds during the period 1988 to 1990 was approximately 70 percent. Using the guidelines of the old rule, 75 percent occupancy is required before new adult beds can be approved unless there is a not normal circumstance. Boca's Proposal Boca Raton Community Hospital ("Boca") is a 394-bed not-for-profit acute care hospital, accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals and Health Organizations, which proposes to convert 21 of its medical/surgical to 15 adult psychiatric beds and to delicense an additional 6 acute care beds. Boca's CON would be conditioned on the provision of 10.8 percent total annual patient days to Medicaid patients and a minimum of 5 percent gross revenues generated, or 2 percent total annual patient days to medically indigent patients. Boca has proposed this alternative so that, if it fails to provide direct care to indigents, it may donate the revenues to further the objectives of the state and district mental health councils. Boca Raton Community Hospital Corporation has control and manages the Boca's property, policies and funds. The Boca Raton Community Hospital Foundation raises funds for Boca and has the funds necessary to accomplish the proposed project at a cost of $932,531. Boca's application asserts that a not normal circumstance exists in the need to serve Medicaid patients in the district, and that a need exists to serve geriatric psychiatric patients in an acute care hospital, due to their general medical condition. Medicaid reimbursement for psychiatric care is only available in acute care hospitals. Boca Historically serves in excess of 70 percent Medicare (geriatric) patients. In 1990, 72 percent of Medicaid psychiatric patients residing in Boca's service area sought psychiatric services outside District 9, as compared to the outmigration of 14.7 percent Medicare patients, and 11 percent commercial insurance patients. Boca supported its proposed 10.8 percent Medicaid CON condition, with evidence that 10.8 percent of all psychiatric discharges in its market area were for Medicaid patients. Boca's opponents dispute the claim that a disproportionate outmigration of District 9 Medicaid patients is, in and of itself, a not normal circumstance. Using the travel time standard for inpatient psychiatric services of 45 minutes under average driving conditions, the opponents argue that District 10 facilities should be considered as available alternatives to additional psychiatric beds in District 9. In fact, the parties stipulated that there are no geographic access problems in District 9. In contrast to the opponents position, Subsections 381.705(a), (b)(, (d), (f) and (h), Florida Statutes (1991), indicate that need, available alternatives and accessibility are evaluated within a district, as defined by Subsection 381.702(5). Therefore, using the statutory criteria as indicative of the situation which is normal, the disproportionate outmigration of medicaid patients can be considered a not normal circumstance with a showing of access hardships for this payor group. Boca's opponents also assert general acute care adult beds are adequate. In August 1991, the occupancy rate was 56.9 percent in the 171 licensed adult psychiatric beds in District 9 general acute care hospitals which are eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Finally, Boca's opponents argue that Boca historically has not, and will not serve Medicaid patients in sufficient number to alter the outmigration. In 1990, Boca reported 671 Medicaid inpatient days from a total of 99,955. That is equivalent to 92 of the 16,170 admissions. Because Boca has a closed medical staff, only the psychiatrists on staff would be able to admit patients to a psychiatric unit. From the testimony and depositions received in evidence, Boca's psychiatrists who discussed their service to Medicaid patients treated less than 12 Medicaid patients a year. One psychiatrist, who had previously treated Medicaid patients at a mental health center, has been in private practice since 1983-84, but was not sure he had treated a Medicaid patient in his private practice and has received a new Medicaid provider number a few weeks prior to hearing. One Boca psychiatrist does not treat Medicaid patients on an inpatient basis. Two other Boca psychiatrists reported seeing 10 and "a couple" of Medicaid patients a year, respectively. The latter of these described the Medicaid billing procedure as cumbersome. Given the unavailability of Medicaid eligible beds in the District and the nature of the practices of its closed staff of psychiatrists, Boca has failed to establish that its CON application will alleviate the outmigration for psychiatric services of District 9 Medicaid patients. This conclusion is not altered by the subsequent closure of Lake's 46 adult psychiatric beds, because Medicaid reimbursement would not have been available at Lake which was not an acute care hospital. In fact, HRS takes the position that there are no not normal circumstances in this case. Wellington's Proposal Wellington, a 120 bed hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida, proposed to convert 15 acute care beds to 15 short term adult psychiatric beds which, if approved, will be licensed as adult psychiatric beds. Wellington's acute care beds are only 28 percent occupied. Wellington is located in the western portion of Palm Beach County, where no other inpatient psychiatric facilities are located. Wellington is a wholly owned subsidiary of Universal Health Services, Inc. ("UHS"), accredited by the Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Hospitals and Health Organizations (JCAHO) and the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), and offers clinical experience for students of the Southeastern College of Osteopathic Medicine (SECOM). Internships and externships for osteopathic students are also provided at Humana's psychiatric pavilion. Wellington proposes to fund the total project cost of $920,000 from funds available to UHS and intends to become a Baker Act receiving facility. Wellington is not a disproportionate share hospital, and projects 1 percent Medicaid service in its payor mix. Wellington proposes to serve adult psychiatric patients in 15 beds, and projects 53.3 percent and 70 percent occupancy in those beds in years one and two, but does not make a third year projection of at least 80 percent occupancy as required by Paragraph 4(d) of Rule 10-5.011(o). Because the average annual adult occupancy rate in the district is less than 75 percent, any applicant proposing to serve adults must demonstrate that a not normal circumstance exists for approval of its CON application. In addition, there appears to be no shortage of psychiatric beds in acute care hospitals in District 9. See Finding of Fact 39, supra. Not Normal Circumstance Wellington has not alleged nor demonstrated that any of the factors related to its current operations, location or proposed services are not normal circumstances in support of its CON application. Absent the showing of a not normal circumstance, Wellington's proposal cannot be approved, pursuant to Paragraph 4(e) and Rule 10-5.011(o), Florida Administrative Code. Savannas Proposal Savannas Hospital Limited partnership d/b/a Savannas Hospital ("Savannas") is a JCAHO accredited 70 bed psychiatric and substance abuse hospital located in Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie County, Florida, approximately 40 miles north of Palm Beach. Savannas, a Baker Act facility, proposes to convert all 20 of its licensed substance abuse beds to psychiatric beds and to add 10 new psychiatric beds, at a total project cost of $1,444,818. Savannas also proposes to commit to providing 7 percent indigent care. While not specifically describing its circumstances as not normal, Savannas does indicate that it is (1) the only applicant in the northern sub- district of District 9, and (2) could readmit to a segregated unit low functioning neurogeriatric patients of the type it previously served. Savannas also indicated that Medicare reimbursement is not available for patients who have substance abuse, rather than psychiatric primary diagnoses. As a freestanding provider, Savannas is not eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Savannas demonstrates what services it would provide, if its CON is approved, but fails to identify a need for the services by District 9 psychiatric patients. Within the northern sub-district, the only other facility in St. Lucie County, Lawnwood, reported an occupancy rate of 65 percent in 1989. AHCA also argued that the substance abuse beds at Savannas are needed and should not be converted to psychiatric beds. That position is supported by the fact that Savannas substance abuse beds had a higher occupancy level than its psychiatric beds in 1989. Savannas' application and the evidence presented do not support the need for the services proposed by Savannas, nor does Savannas assert that any not normal circumstances exist.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Certificate of Need Number 6438 to Glenbeigh Hospital of Palm Beach, Inc.; Certificate of Need Number 6442 to Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc.; Certificate of Need Number 6441 to Wellington Regional Medical Center, Inc.; and Certificate of Need Number 6444 to Savannas Hospital Limited Partnership. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of June 1993. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 18th day of June 1993. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Humana Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 2. 3-6. Issues not addressed. 7-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 44 and 46. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 10. 11-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 13-15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 & 29. Issue not addressed. 20-21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 22. Issue not addressed. 23-24. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12 and Conclusions of Law 4. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected in Findings of Fact 12 and 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. Rejected in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. 38-47. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 44 and 47. Issue not addressed. Rejected in Finding of Fact 46. Issue not addressed. 52-54. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46 and 47. 55-57. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 54 Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 26, 38, 39, 42, 43, 47, 48, 54, 55 and 57. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 74-75. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 27. 76-77. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 82. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 82. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 37. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 39. Issue not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27 and 30. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27, 29 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 42. Issue not addressed. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 1. 95-99. Issues not addressed Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 102-114. Issues not addressed Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Issue not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 37. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10. 121-122. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 4 and 47. Issue not addressed. Irrlevant. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 10 Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 10, 25, 47 and 48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 11. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47, 48 and 49. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 46. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47 and 48. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47 and 48. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 15. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 47, 48 and 49. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 11. Lake Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 43. 11-12. Issues not addressed. 13-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27-43. 20-21. Issues not addressed. 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 25-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 27-28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 29-31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 32. Rejected in relevant part in Finding of Fact 13. 33. Issue not addressed. 34. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 35. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 36-37. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 38-39. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 40. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 41. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 30. 42-43. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. 44. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. 45. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 46-47. Issues not addressed. 48. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 49-52. Issues not addressed. 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 42. 54-56. Issues not addressed. 57. Accepted in relevant part in Conclusions of Law 4. 58-59. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26 and in Conclusions of Law 4. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 65-66. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 18, 27 and 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 39 and 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 39 and 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47, 48, 49, 53 and 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 84-89. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 92-97. Issues not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 37. 100-102. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47 and 48. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 111-113. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Adopted. Adopted. Accepted in relevant part. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 3 and 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. Issue not addressed. 128-132. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 133-135. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32 and 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. 150-151. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 152-156. Issues not addressed. 157-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 159. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. 160. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 161. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 162. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 163. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 164. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 165. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 166. Charter Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 1. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Adopted. 4-10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 12-15. Issues not addressed. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 18-19. Issues not addressed. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 21-25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 8. 26-38. Issues not addressed 39-40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 43-44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adoped in Conclusion of Law 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Issue not addressed. 52-53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 54-55. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 58-73. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 78-79. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. 86-94. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 39 and 42. 99-101. Issues not addressed. 102. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 103-134. Issues not addressed. 135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 136-140. Issues not addressed. Boca Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 12. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 14. Adopted. 15-16. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 18. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 19. Issue not addressed. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 22. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 23. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 28-30. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 41. 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 34. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 36. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 37-42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 43-47. Issues not addressed. 48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 30. 49-50. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Issue not addressed. 53-54. Rejected in Finding of Fact 30. 55-56. Issues not addressed. 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 58-59. Issues not addressed. Rejected in Findings of Fact 39 and 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 64-65. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 35 and 38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 34. Issue not addressed. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Issue not addressed. Adopted. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 81-82. Rejected in Finding of Fact 42. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25 and 42. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 89-97. Issues not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Rejected in Finding of Fact 42. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Sandy Pines 1. Issue not addressed. 2-3. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 4. Issue not addressed. 5. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 9. 6-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 9-13. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 15. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 20-24. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 25. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 9. 26-29. Issues not addressed. 30. Adopted. 31-33. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43, 48, 49 and 54. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Issue not addressed. 39-40. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 41-42. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 12 and 17. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 17. 46-47. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 48. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25 and 26. 49-50. Issues not addressed. Adopted. Adopted. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 42. 55-56. Issues not addressed. 57. Adopted. 58-59. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Conclusion of Law 3. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 62-64. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 27 and 30. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27 and 30. 67. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 22. 68-69. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 21. 70. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26. 71. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 26 and in 72. Conclusion of Law 3. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 26 and 73. 38. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 25, 27 and 30. 74-75. Not legible. 76. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 77-80. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 81. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. 82-83. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 84-95. Issues not addressed. Wellington 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 8-10. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 13-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 44. 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 46. 21-22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 44 and 46. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 44. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. 27-28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 31-32. Issues not addressed. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 25. Adopted. Issue not addressed. 36-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 45. 38-42. Issues not addressed. 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 34, 42 and 47. 44-63. Issues not addressed. 64-65. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. 66-67. Issues not addressed. 68. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 69-91. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 47. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. 94-103. Issues not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 1 and 44. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. 106-111. Issues not addressed 112. Rejected in Findings of Fact 25, 27 and 30. 113-115. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. Savannas Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 50. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 5 and 50. Adopted. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Rejected in Finding of Fact 56. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. Issue not addressed. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5 and 51. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 51. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 30-33. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 35-37. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Issue not addressed. 40-42. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 50. 44-48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50. 49-51. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. Adopted. Adopted. 56-57. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 50 Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. Issue not addressed. 60-61. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. 62-63. Issues not addressed. 64. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 65-66. Issues not addressed. 67. Rejected in Findings of Fact 53 and 57. 68-70. Issues not addressed. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 72-77. Issues not addressed 78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 79-100. Issues not addressed. HRS Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 16 and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10-11. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. Issue not addressed. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 12. 16-17. Issues not addressed. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 32, 46 and 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. 21. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 1. 22. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 2. 23-33. Issues not addressed. 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 35-36. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. 37. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 32. 38. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 32. 39. Rejected in Findings of Fact 40, 41 and 42. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 41. Issue not addressed. 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 44. Issue not addressed. 45-46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32. 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. 48. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 44. 49. Issue not addressed. 50. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 46. 51. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. 52. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 46. 53-54. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 45. 55. Issue not addressed. 56-57. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 46. 58. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. 59-61. Issues not addressed. 62-64. Adopted in Findings of Fact 50 and 51. 65. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 65. 66-68. Issues not addressed. 69. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 52. 70-71. Issues not addressed. 72. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 53. 73. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 53. 74. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. 75-77. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. 78-80. Issues not addressed. 81-82. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 56. 83-89. Issues not addressed. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Cooper, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William B. Wiley, Esquire McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 James C. Hauser, Esquire Foley & Lardner Post Office Box 508 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire David C. Ashburn, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire C. Gary Williams, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert S. Cohen, Esquire John F. Gilroy, III, Esquire Haben, Culpepper, Dunbar & French, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles H. Hood, Jr., Esquire MONACO, SMITH, HOOD, PERKINS, ORFINGER & STOUT 444 Seabreeze Boulevard, #900 Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Long Term Care Hospitals Of the four classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals," includes: General acute care hospitals with an average length of stay of 25 days or less for all beds; Long term care hospitals, which meet the provisions of subsection 59A-3.065(27), F.A.C.; and, Rural hospitals designated under Section 395, Part III, F.S. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.252(1)(a). This proceeding concerns CON applications for the second of Florida's Class I or general hospitals: LTCHs. A critically ill patient may be admitted and treated in a general acute care hospital, but, if the patient cannot be stabilized or discharged to a lower level of care on the continuum of care within a relatively short time, the patient may be discharged to an LTCH. An LTCH patient is almost always "critically catastrophically ill or ha[s] been." (Tr. 23). Typically, an LTCH patient is medically unstable, requires extensive nursing care with physician oversight, and often requires extensive technological support. The LTCH patient usually fits into one or more of four categories. One category is patients in need of pulmonary/respiratory services. Usually ventilator dependent, these types of LTCH patients have other needs as well that requires "complex comprehensive ventilator weaning in addition to meeting ... other needs." (Tr. 26). A second category is patients in need of wound care whose wound is life-threatening. Frequently compromised by inadequate nutrition, these types of LTCH patients are often diabetic. There are a number of typical factors that may account for the seriousness of the wound patient's condition. The job of the staff at the LTCH in such a case is to attend to the wound and all the other medical problems of the patient that have extended the time required for care of the wound. A third category is patients with some sort of neuro-trauma. These patients may have had a stroke and are often elderly; if younger, they may be victims of a car accident or some other serious trauma. They typically have multiple body systems that require medical treatment, broken bones and a closed head injury for example, that have made them "very sick and complex." (Tr. 27). The fourth category is referred to by the broad nomenclature of "medically complex" although it is a subset of the population of LTCH patients all of whom are medically complex. The condition of the patients in this fourth category involves two or more body systems. The patients usually present at the LTCH with "renal failure ... [and] with another medical condition ... that requires a ventilator ..." Id. In short, LTCHs provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions that usually require care for a relatively extended period of time. To meet the definition of an LTCH a facility must have an average length of inpatient stay ("ALOS") greater than 25 days for all hospital beds. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065(34). The staffs at general acute care hospitals and LTCHs have different orientations. With a staff oriented toward a patient population with a much shorter ALOS, the general acute care hospital setting may not be appropriate for a patient who qualifies for LTCH services. The staff at a general acute care hospital frequently judges success by a patient getting well in a relatively short time. It is often difficult for general acute care hospital staff to sustain the interest and effort necessary to serve the LTCH patient well precisely because of the staff's expectation that the patient will improve is not met in a timely fashion. As time goes by, that expectation continues to be frustrated, a discouragement to staff. The LTCH is unlike other specialized health care settings. The complex, medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient may be beyond the capability of the traditional comprehensive medical rehabilitation ("CMR") hospital, nursing home, skilled nursing facility ("SNF"), or, the skilled nursing unit ("SNU"). CMR units and hospitals are rarely, if ever, appropriate for the LTCH patient. Almost invariably, LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three (3) hours of therapy per day associated with CMR. The primary focus of LTCHs, moreover, is to provide continued acute medical treatment to the patient that may not yet be stable, with the ultimate goal of getting the patient on the road to recovery. In comparison, the CMR hospital treats medically stable patients consistent with its primary focus of restoring functional capabilities, a more advanced step in the continuum of care. Services provided in LTCHs are distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Most nursing and clinical personnel in SNFs and SNUs are not experienced with the unique psychosocial needs of long-term acute care patients and their families. An LTCH is distinguished within the healthcare continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Medicare has long recognized LTCHs as a distinct level of care within the health care continuum. The federal government's prospective payment system ("PPS") now treats the LTCH level of service as distinct with its "own DRG system and ... [its] own case rate reimbursement." (Tr. 108). Under the LTCH PPS, each patient is assigned an LTC- DRG (different than the DRG under the general hospital DRG system) with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based on the patient diagnosis and acuity. The Parties The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON Program and licensing LTCHs and other hospital facilities pursuant to the authority of Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. Select-Palm Beach is the applicant for a free-standing 60-bed LTCH in "east Central Palm Beach County," Select Ex. 1, stamped page 12, near JFK Medical Center in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9661, was denied by the Agency. Select-Palm Beach is a wholly owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation, which provides long term acute care services at 83 LTCHs in 24 states, four of which are freestanding hospitals. The other 79 are each "hospitals-in-a- hospital" ("HIH" or "LTCH HIH"). Kindred is the applicant for a 70-bed LTCH to be located in the north central portion of Palm Beach County in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9662, was denied by the Agency. Kindred is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 73 LTCHs, 59 of which are freestanding, according to the testimony of Mr. Novak. See Tr. 56-57. Kindred Healthcare has been operating LTCHs since 1985 and has operated them in Florida for more than 15 years. At the time of the submission of Kindred's application, Kindred Healthcare's six LTCHs in Florida were Kindred-North Florida, a 60-bed LTCH in Pinellas County, AHCA District 5; Kindred-Central Tampa, with 102 beds, and Kindred-Bay Area- Tampa, with 73 beds, both in Hillsborough County, in AHCA District 6; Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale with 64 beds and Kindred- Hollywood with 124 beds, both in Broward County, ACHA District 10; and Kindred-Coral Gables, with 53 beds, in Dade County, AHCA District 11. The Applications and AHCA's Review The applications were submitted in the first application cycle of 2003. Select-Palm Beach's application is CON No. 9661; Kindred's is CON No. 9662. Select-Palm Beach estimates its total project costs to be $12,856,139. Select-Palm Beach has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH, but did include in its application a map showing three priority site locations, with its preferred site, designated "Site 1," located near JFK Medical Center. At $12,937,419, Kindred's estimate of its project cost is slightly more than Select-Palm Beach's. The exact site of Kindred's proposed LTCH had not been determined at the time of hearing. Kindred's preference, however, is to locate in the West Palm Beach area in the general vicinity of St. Mary's Hospital, in the northern portion of Palm Beach County along the I-95 corridor. This is approximately 15 to 20 miles north of Select's preferred location for its LTCH. There is no LTCH in the five-county service area that comprises District 9: Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. There are two LTCHs in adjacent District 10 (to the south). They have a total of 188 beds and an average occupancy of 80 percent. The Agency views LTCH care as a district-wide service primarily for Medicare patients. At the time of the filing of the applications, the population in District 9 was over 1.6 million, including about 400,000 in the age cohort 65 and over. About 70 percent of the District 9 population lives in Palm Beach County. More than 70 percent of the District's general acute care hospitals are located in that county. Kindred's preferred location for its LTCH is approximately 40 to 50 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH; Select-Palm Beach is approximately 25 to 35 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH. The locations of Select Palm-Beach's and Kindred's proposed LTCHs are complementary. The SAAR Following its review of the two applications, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). Section G., of the report, entitled "RECOMMENDATION," states: "Deny Con #9661 and CON #9662." Agency Ex. 2, p. 43. On June 11, 2003, the report was signed by Karen Rivera, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Certificate of Need, and Mr. Gregg as the Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. It contained a section entitled "Authorization for Agency Action" that states, "[a]uthorized representatives of the Agency for Health Care Administration adopted the recommendations contained herein and released the State Agency Action Report." Agency Ex. 2, p. 44. The adoption of the recommendations is the functional equivalent of preliminary denial of the applications. In Section F. of the SAAR under the heading of "Need," (Agency Ex. 2, p. 40), the Agency explained its primary bases for denial; it concluded that the applicants had not shown need for an LTCH in AHCA District 9. The discussions for the two, although not precisely identical, are quite similar: Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc.(CON #9661): The applicant's two methodological approaches to demonstrate need are not supported by any specific discharge studies or other data, including DRG admission criteria from area hospitals regarding potential need. The applicant also failed to provide any supporting documentation from area physicians or other providers regarding potential referrals. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. (CON #9662): The various methodological approaches presented are not supported by any specific DRG admission criteria from area hospitals suggesting potential need. The applicant provided numerous letters of support for the project from area hospitals, physicians and case managers. However, the number of potential referrals of patients needing LTCH services was not quantified. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Id. At hearing, the Agency's witness professed no disagreement with the SAAR and continued to maintain the same bases contained in the SAAR for the denials of the two applications The SAAR took no issue with either applicant's ability to provide quality care. It concluded that funding for each applicant was likely to be available and that each project appeared to be financially feasible once operating. The SAAR further stated that there were no major architectural concerns regarding Kindred's proposed facility design, but noted reservations regarding the need for further study and revision of Select Palm-Beach's proposed surgery/procedure wing, as well as cost uncertainties for Select Palm Beach because of such potential revisions. By the time of final hearing, however, the parties had stipulated to the reasonableness of each applicant's proposed costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated to the satisfaction of a number of the statutory CON criteria by the two applicants. The parties agreed that the applications complied with the content and review process requirements of sections 408.037 and 409.039, Florida Statutes, with one exception. Select reserved the issue of the lack of a Year 2 of Schedule 6, (Staffing) in Kindred's application. The form of Schedule 6 provided by AHCA to Kindred (unlike other schedules of the application) does not clearly indicate that a second year of staffing data must be provided. The remainder of the criteria stipulated and the positions of the parties as articulated in testimony at hearing and in the proposed orders that were submitted leave need as the sole issue of consequence with one exception: whether Kindred has demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the long term. Kindred's Long Term Financial Feasibility Select-Palm Beach contends that Kindred's project is not financially feasible in the long term for two reasons. They relate to Kindred's application and are stated in Select Palm Beach's proposed order: Kindred understated property taxes[;] Kindred completely fails to include in its expenses on Schedule 8, patient medical assistance trust fund (PMATF) taxes [citation omitted]. Proposed Recommended Order of Select-Palm Beach, Inc., p. 32, Finding of Fact 97. Raised after the proceeding began at DOAH by Select- Palm Beach, these two issues were not considered by AHCA when it conducted its review of Kindred's application because the issues were not apparent from the face of the application. AHCA's Review of Kindred's Application Kindred emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on April 20, 2001, under a plan of reorganization. With respect to the events that led to the bankruptcy proceeding and the need to review prior financial statements, AHCA made the following finding in the SAAR: Under the plan [of reorganization], the applicant [Kindred] adopted the fresh start accounting provision of SOP 90-7. Under fresh start accounting, a new reporting entity is created and the recorded amounts of assets and liabilities are adjusted to reflect their estimated fair values. Accordingly, the prior period financial statements are not comparable to the current period statements and will not be considered in this analysis. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30. The financial statements provided by Kindred as part of its application show that Kindred Healthcare, Kindred's parent, is a financially strong company. The information contained in Kindred's CON application filed in 2003 included Kindred Healthcare's financial statements from the preceding calendar year. Kindred Healthcare's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2002, showed "Income from Operations" to be more than $33 million, and net cash provided by operating activities (cash flow) of over $248 million for the period. Its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2002, showed cash and cash equivalents of over $244 million and total assets of over $1.6 billion. In light of the information contained in Kindred's CON application, the SAAR concluded with regard to short term financial feasibility: Based on the audited financial statements of the applicant, cash on hand and cash flows, if they continue at the current level, would be sufficient to fund this project as proposed. Funding for all capital projects, with the support of its parent, is likely to be available as needed. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30 (emphasis supplied). The SAAR recognized that Kindred projected a "year two operating loss for the hospital of $287,215." Agency Ex. 2, p. Nonetheless, the SAAR concludes on the issue of financial feasibility, "[w]ith continued operational support from the parent company, this project [Kindred's] is considered financially feasible." Id. The Agency did not have the information, however, at the time it reviewed Kindred's application that Kindred understated property taxes and omitted the Public Medicaid Trust Fund and Medical Assistance Trust Fund ("PMATF") "provider tax" of 1.5 percent that would be imposed on Kindred's anticipated revenues of $11,635,919 as contended by Select-Palm Beach. Consistent with Select Palm-Beach's general contentions about property taxes and PMATF taxes, "Kindred acknowledges that it likely understated taxes to be incurred in the operation of its facility." Kindred's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 50, p. 19. The parties agree, moreover, that the omitted PMATF tax is reasonably projected to be $175,000. They do not agree, however, as to the impact of the PMATF tax on year two operating loss. The difference between the two (approximately $43,000) is attributable to a corporate income tax benefit deduction claimed by Kindred so that the combination of the application's projected loss, the omitted PMATF tax, and the deduction yields a year two operating loss of approximately $419,000. Without taking into consideration the income tax benefit, Select-Palm Beach contends that adding in the PMATF tax produces a loss of $462,000. Kindred and Select-Palm Beach also disagree over the projection of property taxes by approximately $50,000. Kindred projects that the property taxes in year two of operation will be approximately $225,000 instead of the $49,400 listed in the application. Select-Palm Beach projects that they will be $50,000 higher at approximately $275,000. Whether Kindred's or Select-Palm Beach's figures are right, Kindred makes two points. First, if year two revenues and expenses, adjusted for underestimated and omitted taxes, are examined on a quarterly basis, the fourth quarter of year two has a better bottom line than the earlier quarters. Not only will the fourth quarter bottom line be better, but, using Kindred's figures, the fourth quarter of year two of operations is profitable. Second, and most importantly given the Agency's willingness to credit Kindred with financial support from its parent, Kindred's application included in its application an interest figure of $1.2 million for year one of operation and $1.03 million for year two. Kindred claims in its proposed recommended order that "[i]n reality ... this project will incur no interest expense as Kindred intends to fund the project out of cash on hand, or operating capital, and would not have to borrow money to construct the project." Id., at paragraph 54, p. 20. Through the testimony of John Grant, Director of Planning and Development for Kindred's parent, Kindred Healthcare, Kindred indicated at hearing that its parent might, indeed, fund the project: A ... Kindred [Healthcare] would likely fund this project out of operating capital. Like I said, in the first nine months of this year Kindred had operating cash flow of approximately $180 million. So it's not as if we would have to actually borrow money to complete a project like this. Q And what was the interest expense that you had budgeted in Year Two for this facility? A $1,032,000. Q ... so is it your statement then that this facility would not owe any interest back to the parent company? A That's correct. Tr. 221-222 (emphasis supplied). If the "financing interest" expense is excluded from Kindred's statement of projected expenses in Schedule 8 of the CON application, using Kindred's revised projections, the project shows a profit of approximately $612,0002 for the second year of operation. If Select-Palm Beach's figures and bottom line loss excludes the "finances interest" expense, the elimination of the expense yields of profit for year two of operations in excess of $500,000. If the support of Kindred's parent is considered as the Agency has signaled its willingness to do and provided that the project is, in fact, funded by Kindred Healthcare rather than financed through some other means that would cause Kindred to incur interest expense, Kindred's project is financially feasible in the long term. With the exception of the issue regarding Kindred's long term financial feasibility, as stated above, taken together, the stipulation and agreements of the parties, the Agency's preliminary review contained in the SAAR, and the evidence at hearing, all distill the issues in this case to one overarching issue left to be resolved by this Recommended Order: need for long term care hospital beds in District 9. Need for the Proposals From AHCA's perspective prior to the hearing, the only issue in dispute with respect to the two applications is need. This point was made clear by Mr. Gregg's testimony at hearing in answer to a question posed by counsel for Select-Palm Beach: Q. ... Assuming there was sufficient need for 130 beds in the district is there any reason why both applicants shouldn't be approved in this case, assuming that need? A. No. (Tr. 398). Both applicants contend that the application each submitted is superior to the other. Neither, however, at this point in the proceeding, has any objection to approval of the other application provided its own application is approved. Consistent with its position that both applications may be approved, Select-Palm Beach presented testimony through its health care planner Patricia Greenberg3 that there was need in District 9 for both applicants' projects. Her testimony, moreover, rehabilitated the single Kindred methodology of three that yielded numeric need less than the 130 beds proposed by both applications: Q ... you do believe that there is a need for both in the district. A I believe there's a need for two facilities in the district. Q It could support two facilities? A Oh, absolutely. Q And the disagreement primarily relates to the conservative approach of Kindred in terms of not factoring in out-migration and the narrowing the DRG categories? A Correct. ... Kindred actually had three models. Two of them support both facilities, but it's the GMLOS model that I typically rely on, and it didn't on the surface support both facilities. That's why I reconciled the two, and I believe that's the difference, is just the 50 DRGs and not including the out-migration. That would boost their need above the 130, and two facilities would give people alternatives, it would foster competition, and it would really improve access in that market. Tr. 150-51. Need for the applications, therefore, is the paramount issue in this case. Since both applicants are qualified to operate an LTCH in Florida, if need is proven for the 130 beds, then with the exception of Kindred's long term financial feasibility, all parties agree that there is no further issue: both applications should be granted. No Agency Numeric Need Methodology The Agency has not established a numeric need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs. Nor does the Agency have "any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)1. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2), which governs "Fixed Need Pools" (the "Fixed Need Pools Rule") states that if "no agency policy exist" with regard to a needs assessment methodology: [T]he applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The Fixed Need Pools Rule goes on to elaborate in subparagraph (e)3 that "[t]he existence of unmet need will not be based solely on the absence of a health service, health care facility, or beds in the district, subdistrict, region or proposed service area." Population, Demographics and Dynamics The first of the four topics to be addressed when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology is "population, demographics and dynamics." The Agency has not defined service areas for LTCHs. Nonetheless, from a health planning perspective, it views LTCH services as being provided district-wide primarily for Medicare patients. Consistent with the Agency's view, Select-Palm Beach identified the entire district, that is, all of AHCA District 9, as its service area. It identified Palm Beach County, one of the five counties in AHCA District 9, as its primary service area. In identifying the service area for Select-Palm Beach, Ms. Greenberg drew data from various sources: population estimates for Palm Beach County and surrounding areas; the number of acute care hospital beds in the area; the number of LTCH beds in the area; the types of patients treated at acute care hospitals; and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. AHCA District 9 has more elderly than any other district in the State, and Palm Beach County has more than any other county except for Dade. Palm Beach County residents comprise 71% of the District 9 population. It is reasonably projected that the elderly population (the "65 and over" age cohort) in Palm Beach County is projected to grow at the rate of 8 percent by 2008. The "65 and over" age cohort is significant because the members of that cohort are most likely to utilize hospital services, including LTCH services. Its members are most likely to suffer complications from illness and surgical procedures and more likely to have co-morbidity conditions that require long- term acute care. Persons over 65 years of age comprise approximately 80 percent of the patient population of LTCH facilities. Both Select-Palm Beach and Kindred project that approximately 80 percent of their admissions will come from Medicare patients. Since 90 percent of admissions to an LTCH come from acute care facilities, most of the patient days expected at Select-Palm Beach's proposed LTCH will originate from residents in its primary service area, Palm Beach County. When looking at the migration pattern for patients at acute care facilities within Palm Beach County, the majority (90 percent) come from Palm Beach County residents. Thus, Select- Palm Beach's projected primary service area is reasonable. Just as Select-Palm Beach, Kindred proposes to serve the entire District. Kindred proposes that its facility be based in Palm Beach County because of the percentage of the district's population in the county as well as because more than 70% of the district's general acute care hospitals are in the county. Its selection of the District as its service area, consistent with the Agency's view, is reasonable. Currently there are no LTCHs in District 9. Availability, Utilization and Quality of Like Services The second topic is "availability, utilization and quality of like services." There are no "like" services available to District residents in the District. Select-Palm Beach and Kindred, therefore, contend that they meet the criteria of the second topic. There are like services in other AHCA Districts. For example, AHCA District 10 has at total of 188 beds at two Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood. The Agency, however, did not present evidence of their quality, that they were available or to what extent they are utilized by the residents of AHCA District 9. Medical Treatment Trends The third topic is medical treatment trends. Caring for patients with chronic and long term care needs is becoming increasingly more important as the population ages and as medical technology continues to emerge that prolongs life expectancies. Through treatment provided the medically complex and critically ill with state of the art mechanical ventilators, metabolic analyzers, and breathing monitors, LTCHs meet needs beyond the capability of the typical general acute care hospitals. In this way, LTCHs fill a niche in the continuum of care that addresses the needs of a small but growing patient population. Treatment for these patients in an LTCH, who otherwise would be cared for without adequate reimbursement to the general acute care hospital or moved to an alternative setting with staff and services inadequate to meet their needs, is a medical trend. Market Conditions The fourth topic to be addressed by the applicant is market conditions. The federal government's development of a distinctive prospective payment system for LTCHs (LTC-DRG), has created a market condition favorable to LTCHs. General acute care hospitals face substantial losses for the medically complex patient who uses far greater resources than expected on the basis of individual diagnoses. Medicare covers between 80 and 85 percent of LTCH patients. The remaining patients are covered by private insurance, managed care and Medicaid. LTCH programs allow for shorter lengths of stay in a general acute care facility, reduces re-admissions and provide more discharges to home. These benefits are increasingly recognized. Numeric Need Analysis Kindred presented a set of needs assessment methodologies that yielded numeric need for the beds applied for by Kindred. Select-Palm Beach did the same. Unlike Kindred, however, all of the needs assessment methodologies presented by Select-Palm Beach demonstrated numeric need in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applications. Select-Palm Beach's methodologies, overall, are superior to Kindred's. Select-Palm Beach used two sets of needs assessment methodologies and sensitivity testing of one of the sets that confirmed the methodology's reasonableness. The two sets or needs assessment methodologies are: (1) a use rate methodology and (2) length of stay methodologies. The use rate methodology yielded projected bed need for Palm Beach County alone in excess of the 130 beds proposed by the two applicants. For the year "7/05 - 6/06" the bed need is projected to be 256; for the year "7/06 - 6/07" the bed need is projected to be 261; and, for the year "7/07 - 6/08" the bed need is projected to be 266. See Select Ex. 1, Bates Stamp p. 000036 and the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 114. If the use rate analysis had been re-computed to include two districts whose data was excluded from the analysis, the bed need yielded for Palm Beach County alone was 175 beds, a numeric need still in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applicants. The use rate methodology is reasonable.4 The length of stay methodologies are also reasonable. These two methodologies also yielded numeric need for beds in excess of the 130 beds proposed. The two methodologies yielded need for 167 beds and 250 beds. Agency Denial The Agency's general concerns about LTCHs are not without basis. For many years, there were almost no LTCH CON applications filed with the Agency. A change occurred in 2002. The change in the LTCH environment in the last few years put AHCA in the position of having "to adapt to a rapidly changing situation in terms of [Agency] understanding of what has been going on in recent years with long-term care hospitals." (Tr. 358.) "... [I]n the last couple of years long-term care hospital applications have become [AHCA's] most common type of application." (Tr. 359.) At the time of the upsurge in applications, there was "virtually nothing ... in the academic literature about long- term care hospitals ... that could [provide] ... an understanding of what was going on ... [nor was there anything] in the peer reviewed literature that addressed long-term care hospitals" id., and the health care planning issues that affected them. Two MedPAC reports came out, one in 2003 and another in 2004. The 2003 report conveyed the information that the federal government was unable to identify patients appropriate for LTCH services, services that are overwhelmingly Medicare funded, because of overlap of LTCH services with other types of services. The 2004 report gave an account of the federal government decision to change its payment policy for a type of long-term care hospitals that are known as "hospitals-within- hospitals" (tr. 368) so that "hospitals within hospitals as of this past summer [2004] can now only treat 25 percent of their patients from the host hospital." Id. Both reports roused concerns for AHCA. First, if appropriate LTCH patients cannot be identified and other types of services overlap appropriately with LTCH services, AHCA cannot produce a valid needs assessment methodology. The second produces another concern. In the words of Mr. Gregg, The problem ... with oversupply of long-term care hospital beds is that it creates an incentive for providers to seek patient who are less appropriate for the service. What we know now is that only the sickest patient ... with the most severe conditions are truly appropriate for long-term care hospital placement. * * * ... [T]he MedPAC report most recently shows us that the greatest indicator of utilization of long-term care hospital services is the mere availability of those services. Tr. 368-369. The MedPAC reports, themselves, although marked for identification, were not admitted into evidence. Objections to their admission (in particular, Kindred's) were sustained because they had not been listed by AHCA on the stipulation required by the Pre-hearing Order of Instructions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration that: approves Select-Palm Beach's application, CON 9661; and approves Kindred's application CON 9662 with the condition that financing of the project be provided by Kindred Healthcare. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2005.
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 1986, a letter of intent was filed on behalf of Anthony J. Estevez to apply for a CON in the March 16, 1986, batching cycle for a 120-bed long-term psychiatric hospital in Dade County, Florida, HRS Service District XI. A long-term psychiatric hospital is defined in Rule 10-5.011(p), Florida Administrative Code, as a "category of services which provides hospital based inpatient services averaging a length of stay of 90 days." Subsequently, DHRS notified Mr. Estevez that his letter of intent was effective March 17, 1986; the application was to be filed by April 15, 1986; the application was to be completed by June 29, 1986; and the date for final department action was August 28, 1986. On April 15, 1986, Mr. Estevez filed his CON application with DHRS (designated action #4854). Anthony J. Estevez' name appeared along with Health Care Advisors Corporation on the line of the application which requested "legal name of project sponsor." Mr. Francis A. Gomez, Mr. Estevez' authorized representative, had the responsibility for the preparation and submission of the application. Mr. Estevez signed the CON application as the project sponsor. HCAC Psychiatric Hospital of Dade County was meant to be the name of the proposed facility. HCAC is an acronym for Health Care Advisors Corporation, Inc. HCAC was incorporated as of April 14, 1987, but the name had been reserved prior to that time. HCAC was initially intended to be a health care management corporation owned by Mr. Estevez. However, it is now anticipated that Flowers Management Corporation (Flowers) will manage the project under the HCAC corporate umbrella. Mr. Estevez owns 100 percent of the stock of HCAC and is also its sole director and sole shareholder. Mr. Estevez considered HCAC and himself to be one and the same for the purpose of the CON application. HCAC initially proposed to construct in Dade County, Florida, a freestanding 120-bed long-term psychiatric hospital. HCAC proposed to divide those beds into three groups: (1) 75 beds for adults; (2) 30 beds for geriatrics; and (3) 15 beds for adolescents. On May 15, 1986, DHRS requested additional information from HCAC regarding its CON application. On June 19, 1986, and June 23, 1986, HCAC in two separate filings provided DHRS with responses to its request for additional information which DHRS believed was omitted from the original application. The application was deemed complete effective June 29, 1986. On August 20, 1986, Francis Gomez, Paul McCall, a health care consultant employed by HCAC at that time, and HCAC's attorney, met with Islara Soto of DHRS regarding the CON application. At this meeting, HCAC advised DHRS of its intent to orient the facility programmatically to meet the needs of the Hispanic population of Dade and Monroe Counties. By letter dated August 29, 1986, DHRS notified Mr. Francis Gomez of its decision to deny CON application 4584. HCAC requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial. At the formal hearing, HCAC indicated a desire to abandon its proposal to provide 15 beds dedicated to serve adolescent patients and sought to introduce evidence relating to a down-sized 105-bed long-term psychiatric hospital serving only adult and geriatric patients. Charter renewed its prehearing motion to exclude any evidence concerning a 105-bed facility. (Approximately three or four weeks prior to the administrative hearing, HCAC had decided to go forward with a proposal for the 105-bed facility.) The undersigned ruled that HCAC would be allowed to present evidence concerning a down-sized 105-bed facility to the extent that such evidence related to a separate and identifiable portion of the original application. HCAC's Proposal The proposed building site for the facility, although not finally selected, is intended to be within the Northwest Dade Center cachement area which is in the northwest corner of Dade County. The ownership of the proposed facility will be by Mr. Estevez and/or his family or wife. The proposed area to be serviced by the facility is Dade and Monroe Counties (HRS Service District XI). HCAC proposes to offer at its facility a psychiatric inpatient unit, patient support services, diagnostic/treatment services, ambulatory care, administrative services, environmental/maintenance, educational and training services, and materials management. The HCAC facility will be managed by Flowers Management Corporation (Flowers), of which Mr. Estevez is a majority shareholder. Flowers was created approximately three and a half years ago for the purpose of providing management in the psychiatric field. Humana Hospital, a hospital chain, has selected Flowers to manage four of its facilities and is also considering Flowers for an additional two facilities. Those facilities are currently providing short-term psychiatric and substance abuse services. Nelson Rodney will be responsible for the design and implementation of the treatment programs in the HCAC facility. Rodney is employed as Regional Vice President of Flowers and is responsible for the management of the Florida hospitals affiliated with Flowers, including a chemical dependency unit at Humana-Biscayne Hospital and a psychiatric unit at Humana West Palm Beach Hospital. The HCAC facility is intended to provide specialty long-term psychiatric services for chronically mentally disturbed individuals requiring a 90-day or greater average length of stay. Many of the patients would be a danger to themselves and others and will require a very restrictive setting -- a locked facility. The programs proposed to be offered involve a range of inpatient diagnostic services, including an intensive diagnostic work-up done prior to admission for all patients. Each patient will have an individualized treatment plan updated every two weeks. The treatment program will include specialized therapy, such as art, music, milieu therapy and special education. There would also be specialized inpatient and outpatient treatment programs for family members and significant others. Discharge planning from the day of admission to assure continuity of care would be another aspect of the program. The proposed HCAC facility would offer a community-like atmosphere. It would provide both open and locked units. Flower's therapeutic model encourages patient participation in daily activities and in the many decisions of what is occurring at the hospital. One component of the project will be an initial screening process by a multi-disciplinary team who will employ a predetermined set of admissions criteria to assist in appropriate levels of care determination. The multi- disciplinary team would consist of a psychiatrist, psychologist, sometimes a neurologist, social worker, a family social assessment person, the patient, and others. The team will attempt to identify and admit only those patients who will have an expected length of stay greater than 90 days. The HCAC facility would provide seminars and workshops to practitioners in the community as well as its own staff. In-service training will also be offered. HCAC proposes to be flexible in the design of its treatment programs and allow new treatments to be utilized. A variety of therapies will be available to provide individualized treatment plans in order to optimize the chance of successful outcome in the patient's treatment. Currently, Flowers affords an in-house program of evaluation. Peer review serves this function in order to assess quality of care rendered to patients in the facility. The HCAC facility proposes to have an Hispanic emphasis. More than 50 percent of the staff will be bilingual. Upper management will consist of individuals who have an acute understanding of Hispanic culture and treatment implications of that culture. The facility will be more flexible in family visitation than is done in many facilities which is an important aspect of the Hispanic culture. The facility as managed by Flowers would have the required "patient's bill of rights" and will also seek JACH accreditation, although these items were not discussed in the application. The HCAC facility would offer each patient an attending psychiatrist who will be part of the multi-disciplinary team that will determine the individualized plan for each patient. Sufficient health manpower including management resources are available to HCAC to operate the project. Additionally, the facility will provide internships, field placements and semester rotations. PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS HCAC's CON application, admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4, contains 26 tables concerning various aspects of the 120-bed project as well as Exhibit III.D.1., an operating pro forma. In response to a request for omissions by DHRS, HCAC submitted, among other things, a revised Table 7, revised Table 8, and a revised operating pro forma for the 120-bed project. The items making up HCAC's omission responses were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. In conjunction with its desire to complete a 105-bed facility only, HCAC submitted various new tables and a new operating pro forma (forecasted income statement), which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Table 1 - Source of Funds The estimated total project cost of the 120-bed facility would be $6,469,500. The estimated project cost of the 105-bed facility would be $5,696,940. The financing of the project is contemplated to be done through NCNB bank which has expressed its willingness to finance the project. It is reasonable to assume that HCAC would and could obtain the necessary financing for the proposed facility. Table 2 - Total Debt Table 2 for both the 120-bed project and the 105-bed project shows that 100 percent of the project costs would be financed by debt at an interest rate of 13 percent. The 13 percent interest rate was projected in 1986 and is higher than current rates. It is reasonable to assume that 100 percent of the costs can be financed at 13 percent for either the 120-bed or 105-bed project. Table 3 - New Purchase Equipment HCAC initially projected that $750,000 would be needed to equip the proposed 120-bed facility. The projected expenditure for the 105-bed facility is $500,000. The projected costs of $750,000 and $500,000 for the equipment needed for the 120-bed and 105-bed facility, respectively, are unreasonably low. For example, of the $500,000 projected for equipment costs for the 105-bed project, $80,000 is for mini-vans, $15,000 is for the security system, $40,000 is for a computerized medical records system, and $40,000 for a computerized on-line nurse care program. This would leave $325,000 for all other necessary equipment. Pharmacy, laboratory services and x-ray equipment would be on contract. The remaining $325,000 would be insufficient to equip the kitchen (which would require $80,000), furnish patient rooms (approximately $150,000) and equip the remainder of the 105-bed facility which would reasonably require housekeeping equipment, exam room equipment, chart racks for the nurses station, seclusion room beds, office furniture and equipment, laundry equipment, lockers or shelving, refrigerators, ice makers, day room furniture and lounge furniture. A more reasonable projection for equipment costs would be in the neighborhood of $850,000 to $900,000. Table 7 - Utilization by Class of Pay Tables 7 and 8 of the original application which dealt with utilization by class of pay and effect on patient charges, were revised by HCAC in their responses to DHRS' Omissions Request. Table 7 reflects estimations of the net revenues which HCAC expects to capture from specific payor mixes, namely, contract/indigent, Medicare and insurance/private pay. There is no Medicaid reimbursement available for psychiatric care rendered in a freestanding psychiatric facility. The proposed payor mix for the 120-bed facility is, in patient days, as follows: Year 1 -- Contract/Indigent 8.64 percent (1989) Medicare 26.10 percent Insurance and Private Pay 65.26 percent Year 2 -- Contract/Indigent 8.48 percent (1990) Medicare 26.15 percent Insurance and Private Pay 65.37 percent The proposed payor mix for the 105-bed facility is, in patient days, as follows: Years 1 and 2 - Medicare 3.3 percent Insurance and Private Pay 90.7 percent Indigent 6.0 percent The change in payor mix was not attributed to down-sizing of the facility, but rather was the result of HCAC's additional research and understanding of what the payor mix would most likely be. The change in payor mix does not represent a substantial change to the original application taken as a whole. Francis Gomez, who prepared the Table 7 and was designated as an expert for HCAC in the area of health care facilities management and financial and marketing operations, conceded that HCAC's Table 7 for the 120-bed facility is not reasonable. The Table 7 for the 105-bed facility is also not reasonable. HCAC's contractual allowances are not reasonable. HCAC projects 3.3 percent for Medicare and nothing for HMOs or PPOs. It is unreasonable for HCAC's proposal to make no provision for HMO and PPO type arrangements in view of its projection of 90.7 percent insurance and private pay. Because the proposed patient mix for the 105-bed project is adults and geriatrics, 20 to 25 percent would be a more reasonable Medicare projection. HCAC's projected 90.7 percent insurance and private patient days is unreasonably high in view of the project's intended emphasis of serving the Hispanic population in HRS Service District XI. In 1980, 27.8 percent of the Hispanics in Dade County had incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty level. The 1987 United States Hispanic market study establishes that 20 percent of the Hispanic adults who are heads of households are either retired, students or unemployed. These groups of individuals would not reasonably fit into the insurance and private pay category in most cases. Thus, the 90.7 percent figure for insurance and private pay would have to be reduced significantly. Table 8 - Effects on Patient Charges HCAC's revised Table 8 for the 120-bed facility lists net revenues rather than gross charges for the specific services listed. In year one (1989), the table lists the following projected charges/rates: daily room charge - $214.61; average daily ancillary charge - $25.00; contract/indigent - $125.00; and Medicare - $229.61. In year two (1990), the table lists the following projected charges: daily room charge - $223.19; average daily ancillary charge - $26.00; contract/indigent - $130.00; and Medicare - $238.79. The Table 8 for the 105-bed facility reflects an all-inclusive gross charge of $300 per day in both years (1989 and 1990) for the daily room charge, Medicaid and Medicare. The $300 per day figure would include ancillary charges but not physician fees. The projected patient charges fall within the range of charges currently in effect at psychiatric hospitals in Dade and Monroe Counties and are reasonable for both the 120-bed facility and the 105-bed project. Table 10 - Projected Utilization The financial feasibility of any proposed hospital is largely tied to the ability of the hospital to generate an adequate level of utilization. Absent an adequate level of utilization, a facility will not generate sufficient revenues to meet expenses. Table 10 for both the 120-bed facility and the 105- bed facility sets forth the projected utilization of the proposed facility, by month and year, in patient days, for the first two years of anticipated operation. Table 10 for the 120-bed facility projects the facility will exceed 80 percent occupancy for two of the last three months of the second year and be at 80 percent occupancy at the end of that year. Eighty percent occupancy of 120 beds yields an average daily census of about 96 patients. Table 10 for the 105- bed facility projects that the facility will arrive at 92 percent occupancy at the end of the first year of operation and remain at 95 percent throughout the second year. Ninety-five percent occupancy of the 105-bed facility equals an average daily census of about 99 or 100 patients. The Table 10 "fill-up" rates for both the 120-bed and 105-bed facilities are unreasonable and not practical to be achieved. There is presently an emphasis on providing psychiatric care in less restrictive settings, a trend favoring reduced lengths of stay and a trend in third-party payors to provide reimbursement for a shorter number of days. In addition, nationwide statistics show that only 4 percent of the patients admitted to psychiatric facilities require treatment longer than 90 days. Table 11 - Manpower Requirements For the 120-bed facility, HCAC projected in the Table 11 a staffing ratio of one full-time equivalent (FTE) per occupied bed of 1.625 for the first year of operation and 1.43 for the second year. For the 105-bed facility, HCAC projected in the Table 11 1.91 FTE per occupied bed ratio for the first year and 1.45 for the second year. The actual average of FTEs available for both facilities would be 1.8 to 2.0. The application figures are lower than the actual average because students and other non-paid personnel were not included. Thus, when all programmatic FTEs are included, the number of FTEs per occupied bed is higher than what is listed in the Table 11 for either project. There is a relationship between the number and quality of staff personnel and a facility's ability to provide quality psychiatric care. The industry standard for FTEs is 1.8 to 2.0 FTEs per occupied bed. HCAC's proposed staffing for both the 120-bed and 105-bed projects are reasonable. For both proposed facilities, HCAC projects 110.5 FTEs for the first year with a total annual salary of $1,932,000 which equals an average salary of approximately $17,400 per FTE. HCAC's projected total annual salary expense is unreasonably low. Specifically, the salary for the occupational therapist is too low and the nursing salaries are too low because of shortages. Table 16 - Areas and Square Feet / Table 18 - Space Requirements HCAC proposes a total 59,603 square feet of gross area for the 120-bed facility and a total of 56,050 square feet of gross area for the 105-bed facility. The decrease in size for the 105-bed facility is attributed to a reduction of the ground floor, a reduction of the second floor by removing the adolescent portion and an increase of ancillary services on the second floor for the geriatric population. HCAC projects 168 feet of net living space in the patient's bedroom for both the 120-bed facility and the 105-bed facility. HCAC's proposal of total area and square feet requirements for both the 120-bed and 105-bed facility are reasonable for the delivery of quality psychiatric care within the proposed facilities. There would be adequate land space for parking at HCAC's facility to forego the necessity of constructing a parking garage. Table 19 - Nursing Unit Area Summary HCAC proposes a total of 34,479 square feet of gross area for the nursing unit in the 120-bed facility and the 105-bed facility. The square footage figures under Table 19 for both the 120-bed facility and 105-bed facility are reasonable. Table 25 - Estimated Project Costs Project Advisors Corporation (PAC), of which Mr. Estevez is the Chief Executive Officer, will be responsible for the design and construction of the proposed facility. PAC is a design and construction company which employs a registered architect, several licensed general contractors, an engineer, two graduate architects and a registered graduate architect. The registered architect and basically 90 percent of the staff have previously been involved in the design and construction of health related facilities. HCAC's projected total cost for the 120-bed facility is $6,469,500 and the projected total costs for the 105-bed facility is $5,696,940. HCAC projected construction costs per square foot of $57.55 for the 120-bed facility and $60.00 per square foot for the 105-bed facility. Although the average construction cost of psychiatric facilities today is around $75 to $95 per square foot, HCAC's projected costs are reasonable and reflect reasonable charges given the fact that PAC, the company which would construct the facility, is controlled by Mr. Estevez. The projected costs of land acquisition are also reasonable. HCAC's projected equipment costs are contained in both Table 25 and Table 2. As previously discussed, the projected equipment costs for both projects are unreasonably low. Table 26 - Project Completion Forecast HCAC projects that construction for both the 120-bed facility and 105- bed facility would be completed approximately one year after DHRS' approval of the construction documents. The project completion forecasts for both projects are reasonable. Exhibit III.D.1.- Operating Pro Forma/Forecasted Income Statement Revised Exhibit III.D.1 sets forth the operating pro forma for the first two years of operation of the 120-bed facility (1989 and 1990). HCAC's pro forma for its 120-bed facility is not reasonable. The supplies and other expenses depicted in the pro forma (year one at $55.60 per patient day and year two at $58.10 per patient day) are unreasonably low. A more reasonable estimate would be approximately $100 per patient day. The pro forma for the 120-bed facility does not include any estimate for the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) tax. Similar facilities in Florida pay an HCCB tax which is composed of one and a half percent of net revenue. Utilizing the more reasonable estimate of $100 per patient day for supplies and other expenses, and including the appropriate HCCB tax, the total supplies and other expenses would increase approximately $1,100,000 and the HCCB tax would be approximately $85,000 in year one. Instead of showing a profit of $395,012, HCAC would potentially lose approximately $785,000 in that year. In year two, the total supplies and other expenses would increase approximately $1,400,000 and the HCCB tax would be approximately $115,000 to $117,000. Thus, in year two, instead of showing a profit of $919,036, HCAC would potentially lose approximately $617, 000. HCAC's "forecasted income statement" for the 105-bed project is also not reasonable. Specifically, the contractual allowances, the allowance for bad debt, and the salaries, wages and fringe benefits are unreasonable. Contractuals include such things as Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs and PPOs, which all generate discounts which are considered contractual allowances. HCAC estimates its bad debt factor at 1.6 percent. A more reasonable projection would be 6 to 8 percent of gross revenue. CONSISTENCY WITH THE DISTRICT XI HEALTH PLAN AND STATE MENTAL HEALTH PLAN The District XI local health council has produced the 1986 District XI Health Plan. The district plan contains the relevant policies, priorities, criteria and standards for evaluation of an application such as HCAC's. HCAC's application is consistent with some of the applicable sections of the District XI Health Plan but inconsistent with the plan taken as a whole. Policy No. 1 of the District XI health plan states that the district should direct its efforts toward a licensed bed capacity of 5.5 non-federal beds per thousand population ratio by 1989. Presently there are 11,294 beds in District XI which represents a number in excess of 5.5 non-federal beds. HCAC's application is inconsistent with this policy. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 1, states that proposals for the construction of new beds in the district should be considered only when the overall average occupancy of licensed beds exceeds 80 percent. Priority No. 1 refers to certain types of beds, specifically, acute care general beds, short- term psychiatric beds and substance abuse beds. HCAC's application is not inconsistent with this priority because long-term psychiatric beds are not mentioned. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 2 favors the encouragement of projects that meet specific district service needs through the conversion of existing beds from currently underutilized services. Because HCAC is not the operator of an existing hospital and it is not possible for HCAC to convert any beds from other services, HCAC's application is inconsistent with Policy No. 1, Priority No. 2. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 3 would only be relevant in the case of an existing hospital but not in the case of a new hospital where no comparative hearing is involved. HCAC's application is not inconsistent with Policy No. 1, Priority No. 3. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 4 allows for priority consideration for the initiation of new services for projects which have had an average occupancy rate of 80 percent for the last two years and which have a documented history of providing services to Medicaid and/or other medically indigent patients. HCAC's application is not entitled to priority consideration under Policy No. 1, Priority No. 4. Policy No. 2 is a broad policy which provides that service alternatives should be available within the district to meet the needs of community residents, while at the same time maintaining an efficient level of utilization. This policy is necessarily tied to the demonstration of overall need for the facility. If HCAC can show need for the proposed facility, its proposal would be consistent with this policy. Policy No. 2, Priority No. 1(f) (Psychiatric Bed Services) provides for priority consideration to be given to specific institutions which have achieved an 80 percent occupancy rate for the preceding year. HCAC's application is not entitled to priority consideration under Policy No. 2, Priority No. 1(f). Policy No. 2, Policy No. 3(f) states that a CON applicant should propose to provide the scope of services consistent with the level of care proposed in the application in accordance with appropriate accrediting agency standards. In the case of psychiatric bed services the appropriate accrediting agency is the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH). Although HCAC neglected to address its ability to comply with JCAH standards in its application, it has established its intent to seek JCAH accreditation. HCAC's proposal is consistent with Policy No. 2, Priority No. 3(f). Policy No. 2, Priority No. 4 gives a preference to those applicants that propose innovative mechanisms such as various complimenting outpatient and inpatient services which are directed toward an ultimate reduction in dependency upon hospital beds. HCAC does not meet this priority because it has not proposed any mechanisms to complement outpatient services with inpatient services directed toward an ultimate reduction in the dependency on hospital beds. Policy No. 2, Priority No. 5 gives a preference to applicants who have based their project on a valid marketing research effort and have placed it in the context of a long-range plan. HCAC does not meet this priority because there was no evidence that the project was based on a valid marketing research plan or placed in the context of a long-range plan. Policy No. 2f Priority No. 6 states that existing facilities as well as applicants for new services should demonstrate a willingness to enter into cooperative planning efforts directed at establishing a system whereby duplication of specialized services is avoided while quality of such services is enhanced. HCAC presented no documentation of transfer agreements with other hospitals and did not substantiate its willingness to enter into cooperative planning efforts with letters of intent, referral agreements or memoranda of understanding. Policy No. 3 provides that services in the community should be made available to all segments of the resident population regardless of the ability to pay. HCAC's proposal is consistent with this policy because a provision for services to indigent patients has been made. Policy No. 3, Priority No. 1 provides that priority should be given to applications proposing services and facilities designed to include Medicaid (Baker Act) patients to the greatest extent possible based on documented history or proposed services. Although Medicaid does not reimburse for freestanding psychiatric services, and Baker Act is only available to short-stay facilities specifically chosen to receive a Baker Act contract, HCAC has not designed its project to include those patients to the greatest extent possible. Thus, HCAC's application is not consistent with Policy No. 3, Priority No. 1. Goal I of the 1986 District XI Goals and Policies for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services is applicable to HCAC's application. This goal favors mental health services in the least restrictive setting possible. Long- term institutional care may be the least restrictive setting possible in the continuum of mental health care for the treatment of certain more serious types of patients. The concept of "continuum of care" means the full breadth of services available within a community, from least restrictive to most restrictive, from least intensive to most intensive. There must be settings along the full continuum of psychiatric care for patients to receive the level of care they may need. HCAC's application is not inconsistent with Goal I. Issues Relating to CON Recommendations and Priority for Inpatient Psychiatric Services (District XI Health Plan 1986, page 26). In this section of the district health plan, the Planning Advisory Committee states its recommendations and preferences for services for the comprehensive treatment of the mentally ill. The Committee recognizes that long-term hospitalization is a viable form of treatment for some mentally ill patients. However, the Committee expresses a preference for short hospital stays and applicants that project treatment modalities with an average length of stay under 20 days. In addition, the Committee emphasizes a preference for services to be obtained through the conversion of medical/surgical beds, because the district has a large surplus of such beds. Overall, HCAC's project is not consistent with the recommendations and priorities of the Planning Advisory Committee. HCAC's proposal is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the State Health Plan taken as a whole. The State Health Plan contains an important and significant goal that no additional long-term hospital psychiatric beds should be added in the area until the existing and approved beds in the district have achieved an 80 percent occupancy level. The existing long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the district have an occupancy level at approximately 67 percent. AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF ALTERNATIVES There are available, accessible and appropriate facilities within the service district which can be utilized for the services proposed by HCAC that are presently underutilized. Currently, there are short-term psychiatric providers, a long-term provider, residential facilities, nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities that are available as alternatives in the service district, and in many cases are significantly underutilized. Although the services to be offered by the HCAC facility would be in excess of what is provided in an adult residential treatment facility, nursing home or adult congregate living facility, those facilities could serve as viable alternatives in appropriate cases. In 1986, there were 6,513 existing nursing home beds in District XI and an additional 1,928 approved for opening. There are 24 adult congregate living facilities in District XI with 50 beds or more. The total number of beds for ACLFs in 1986 was 2,620. In addition, Grant Center Hospital has 140 existing and 20 approved long-term psychiatric beds; its occupancy rate is low. THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE QUALITY OF CARE AND THE APPLICANT'S RECORD OF PROVIDING QUALITY OF CARE The "Flowers Model," made a part of the application, is a description of how, from a clinical perspective, the proposal will be managed. Although Flowers does not presently operate any long-term psychiatric facilities, the Flowers Model is appropriate for a long-term psychiatric care facility. From a clinical and programmatic perspective, the HCAC facility would provide good quality of care. PROBABLE ECONOMIES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN SERVICE WHICH MAY BE DERIVED FROM OPERATION OF JOINT, COOPERATIVE OR SHARED HEALTH CARE RESOURCES HCAC has not demonstrated that there will be any improvements in service which may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative or shared health care resources. The Northwest Dade County proposed location of the HCAC facility would place the project within two hours travel of 90 percent or more of District XI population. Nevertheless, HCAC's facility would increase the number of people who would be within two hours of long-term adult psychiatric facilities by less than 1 percent. The patients in District XI will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the service proposed by HCAC. There is presently adequate and accessible long-term hospital inpatient services for District XI population based on the existing and approved facilities in District X (Southwinds Hospital, Florida Medical Center) and District XI (Grant Center). There are two approved but not yet open long-term psychiatric facilities in District X, Broward County. Florida Medical Center holds a CON for 60 long-term adult psychiatric beds to be located in Lauderdale Lakes and Southwinds Hospital holds a 75-bed CON with 60 beds counted for long-term treatment of adult and geriatric patients to be located in Andy Town. In addition, there are 238 long-term state hospital beds at South Florida State Hospital in Broward County. Although the need for long-term psychiatric beds is assessed on a district-wide basis, it is reasonable to consider psychiatric beds in Broward County (District X) as an alternative to HCAC's proposal because they are within two hours access of individuals within the two counties. Likewise, it is reasonable to consider approved beds because need is projected for a future date. Not counting approved beds would overestimate need and result in duplication of services. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY HCAC has not demonstrated that the 120-bed project or the 105-bed facility is financially feasible in the short or the long term. The projection of revenues and expenses in the pro forma (120-bed project) and the forecasted income statement (105-bed project) were flawed to such an extent that financial feasibility of the project was not shown. IMPACT ON COSTS AND COMPETITION If HCAC's project were to be built, a likely result is increased charges for the provision of services in the area. HCAC's proposed facility would negatively impact the availability of psychiatric nurses. There is a shortage of psychiatric nurses in Dade County and it is difficult to recruit and hire R.N.s with psychiatric experience. In order to hire nurses in a time of shortage, hospitals must recruit staff from other facilities. Shortages can increase the cost of recruitment and the cost of salaries. Charter is a hospital located in District XI and consists of 88 beds, 80 of which are licensed as short-term psychiatric beds and eight of which are licensed as short-term substance abuse beds. Short-term psychiatric inpatient care is defined in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code, as "a service not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults." HCAC's proposed facility, if approved, would have a negative economic impact on Charter. It is very likely that many of the patients at the proposed HCAC facility would experience lengths of stay between 45 and 60 days. Charter treats a significant number of patients (approximately 15 percent) who stay longer than 30 days. Because of the difficulty of initially identifying patients who would require either short or long-term stays, many of Charter's patients could be lost to the HCAC project. Charter could suffer a loss of up to 657 patient days per year if HCAC's proposed facility is approved. This loss of patients would impair Charter's ability to have certain types of programs, equipment and staff. PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO MEDICAID PATIENTS AND THE MEDICALLY INDIGENT HCAC's project does not propose a significant amount of indigent care and HCAC has no history of providing health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. OCCUPANCY RATE FOR EXISTING LONG-TERM HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRIC BEDS Grant Center Hospital is the only existing long-term psychiatric facility in District XI. It has 140 beds and specializes in treating children and adolescent patients. Its occupancy rate at the time of review for the preceding year was approximately 67 percent. The appropriate period to calculate occupancy rate of existing facilities in this case is July 1985 to July 1986 because this is the most recent 12-month period preceding application decision. The occupancy rate of all psychiatric beds within District XI was below 80 percent. HCAC'S PROPOSED NEED METHODOLOGY At the hearing, W. Eugene Nelson testified on behalf of HCAC on the need for the proposed long-term adult psychiatric beds. Mr. Nelson was accepted as an expert in the field of health care planning, including psychiatric bed need assessment. Mr. Nelson performed his analysis in District XI using the Graduate Medical Educational National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) methodology. The need methodology proposed by HCAC is inappropriate to adequately and accurately predict need for long-term adult psychiatric beds in District XI. The GMENAC study is a national study based on national data developed to determine physician requirements in 1990 for 23 medical specialities. GMENAC estimates the prevalence of certain psychiatric disorders among the general population and estimates the number of those persons who need care for their conditions in differing treatment settings ranging from outpatient services to 24-hour institutional care. HCAC's methodology, utilizing the GMENAC study, predicted a gross need of 895 beds in District XI in the applicable horizon (July 1991). The total number of existing long-term psychiatric beds in the entire State of Florida is only 836 beds, and the majority of those beds are experiencing occupancy levels under 65 percent. Many of these long-term facilities have been around for a period of at least three years and are still experiencing low occupancy. Therefore, the low levels are probably not based on the fact that the facilities are in a start-up mode. HCAC's bed need computation is as follows: Adult Long Term Psychiatric Bed Requirements (Excludes Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Mental Retardation, Organic Brain Syndrome and "other" Conditions) District XI: July 1991 Condition Admission Rate Schizophrenia & Other Psychoses 99 Affective Disorder Psychosis 20 Affective Disorder Neuroses 60 Neuroses and Personality Disorders 199 20 Projected 1991 Population Age 18+ 1,459,437 Total Projected Admissions 2,904 Average Length of Stay 90 Projected Patient Days Target Occupancy 80.00 261,385 percent Total Beds Required 895 Beds Currently Available 438 South Florida State Hospital (450 X .48) Residential Treatment Facilities 216 233 Net Beds Needed 496 The projected 1991 population for District XI for age 18 and above is 1,459,473. The population projections were received from the Office of the Governor. The anticipated admissions per 100,000 is calculated to be 199 for the conditions listed. The total projected admissions for 1991 is 2,904. The 2,904 projected long-term care admissions when multiplied by the average length of stay of 90 days generates 261,385 projected patient days in the 1991 horizon period in District XI. The 261,385 patient days is then divided by 365 days in the year, and then by 80 percent, the latter of which is contained in the rule as the optimum or desired occupancy for long-term psychiatric beds. This yields a total gross long-term psychiatric bed requirement for adults and geriatrics of 895 beds. In performing his analysis, Mr. Nelson used Table 4, page 22 of the GMENAC Study which lists information for mental disorders requiring care by treatment setting. The prevalence rate of 199 admissions per 100,000 population was based on the study's projection of the mental disorders listed requiring a "24-hour" treatment setting. Nelson used a projected 90-day length of stay in his computations. There is nothing in the GMENAC document that sets forth the average length of stay of persons reflected in the 24-hour column. Therefore, it is misleading to assume that persons admitted subject to the 199 per 100,000 admissions rate will actually experience an average length of stay as long as 90 days. For HCAC's admission rate to be valid, all of the facilities in District XI would have to average a 90-day length of stay. This is an unreasonable assumption. Nationwide, only a small percentage of all psychiatric admissions experience a length of stay as long as 90 days. In computing beds currently available in District XI, Mr. Nelson did not consider nursing home beds, adult congregate living facility beds, or the 135 long-term psychiatric beds that have been approved for two facilities in District X (Broward County). Nelson also did not consider whether short-term facilities were capable or willing to take additional patients for long-term treatment. Thus, the computation of beds currently available in the HCAC methodology is unreasonably low. HCAC's need methodology generated a long-term psychiatric bed to population ratio of .61 per thousand. DHRS' rule for short-term psychiatric beds was a population ratio of .35 per thousand. Short-term care facilities have admission rates two to three times greater than long-term facilities and nationwide statistics establish that only 4 percent of all psychiatric patients stay longer than 90 days. It is not reasonable for the bed rate for long-term adult psychiatric beds to be higher than the rate for short-term psychiatric beds. Mr. Nelson excluded organic brain syndrome diagnosis from his analysis and admission rate based on an assumption that many of those patients are in nursing homes. Nelson did not use nursing home beds in computing his need methodology because he believed that eliminating the organic brain syndrome category from the Table 4, page 22, 24-hour column in the GMENAC study eliminates the need for considering nursing home beds in the inventory. For that approach to be valid, the number of organic brain syndrome patients that go to long-term psychiatric facilities would need to cancel out the number of patients in other diagnostic categories who go to nursing homes. Nelson did not consult or review any data concerning the number or percentage rates of schizophrenics and other mentally ill patients in nursing homes or the number of organic brain syndrome people being treated in long-term psychiatric facilities. In addition, Nelson did not know what percentage, if any, of the GMENAC projected admissions were nursing home admissions. In computing existing beds, Nelson listed two types of facilities previously existing in District XI which were applicable to his methodology: the state hospital (216 beds) and residential treatment facilities (233 beds). The correct number of beds available for adults from District XI in the state hospital is 238. The actual number of beds for residential facilities is 335. Dr. Howard Fagin testified as an expert in health planning and feasibility analysis, including psychiatric bed need assessment and feasibility. In Dr. Fagin's opinion, Nelson's bed need methodology is incorrect and the conclusions drawn are wrong because Nelson used an inappropriate length of stay based on the GMENAC study and also incorrectly identified the applicable beds which should be considered for comparable facilities under the GMENAC study and, therefore, his total numbers in terms of gross and net beds needed are incorrect. Dr. Fagin's critique of Mr. Nelson's bed need methodology is persuasive and credible. HCAC has failed to show that its proposed need methodology could accurately project the need for long-term psychiatric beds in District XI.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that CON Application No. 4854 by Health Care Advisors Corporation, Inc. be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 308 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 H. Darrell White, Esquire Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William E. Hoffman, Esquire 2500 Trust Company Tower 25 Park Place Atlanta, Georgia 30303 George N. Neros, Jr., Esquire 101 North Monroe Street Monroe-Park Tower Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Parties FRTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation (Charter) which proposes to construct and operate a freestanding, 60 bed, 24- hour-a-day, Intensive Residential Treatment Program for children between the ages of 6 and 18 in Palm Beach County within HRS District IX, pursuant to Rule 10-28.152(8), F.A.C. and Chapter 395, F.S. Although FRTC represents it will construct its proposed facility with or without CON licensure, which it is entitled to do, given the peculiarities of this type of health care entity, it is clear that a prime motivator in FRTC's CON application is that with CON licensure, FRTC potentially will have greater access to insurance reimbursement because it may then call itself a "hospital." FRTC will seek JCAH accreditation. HRS is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications, pursuant to Chapter 10-5.011, F.A.C. and Sections 381.701-381.715, F.S. (1987). HRS preliminarily approved FRTC's application, and supported it through formal hearing and post-hearing proposals. RTCPB is an existing 40 bed residential treatment center for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18, located in Palm Beach County, on the campus of Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches. It provides services similar or identical to those services proposed to be offered by FRTC. It is JCAH accredited through an extension of Lake Hospital's accreditation and is close to JCAH accreditation in its own right. RTCPB is a subsidiary of Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA) . PIA operates two residential treatment centers in Florida. RTCPB is not CON licensed as an IRTP, under Chapters 381 and 395, F.S., but is licensed as a child care facility under Chapter 395, F.S., as a provider of services to HRS under Chapters 10M-9 and 10E-10, F.A.C. RTCPB accepts substance abusers in residency. RTCPB has also applied for CON licensure as an IRTP in a batching cycle subsequent to the present one. That application has been preliminarily denied by HRS and RTCPB is awaiting a Section 120.57(1), F.S., formal administrative hearing thereon. RTCPB now estimates its current patients' average length of stay (ALOS) as 106 days but projects a 315 day (10 1/2 months) ALOS in its subsequent CON application. RTCPB is charging $185 per day or HRS patients and $255 with $23-26 ancillaries [sic] per day for private pay patients. Like FRTC, it uses a "levels" system of behavior modification and patient control. Humana is a 250 bed JCAH accredited hospital located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Of Humana's 250 beds, 162 are traditional acute care beds and 88 are psychiatric beds. The 88 psychiatric beds are administratively divided into different units, one of which is a 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit; this unit opened January 20, 1987, and has an average length of stay of nine months. Humana's existing CONs are for short-term adult psychiatric beds and do not authorize an adolescent unit with an average length of stay of over 30 days. Ninety days is the demarcation, by rule, between short- and long-term psychiatric beds. Humana recently applied for a CON for more psychiatric beds and also applied for an IRTP CON in a subsequent batch to the present one. Humana's present 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit provides grossly similar services to those proposed to be offered by FRTC, but its emphasis is more medical-psychiatric than emotional-behavioral. Like FRTC, Humana does not accept in residency adolescents with a primary diagnosis of substance abuse. Like FRTC and RTCPB, Humana uses a "levels" system. Eighty percent of Humana's patient mix are commercial pay, and the unit is running at a 15 to 20 percent profit margin. Humana usually charges $325 per day on their adolescent unit plus ancillaries [sic] amounting to 10 percent of the patient's bill, but HRS contract patients pay only $225 per day. Humana has lost a number of adolescent unit referrals to RTCPB since RTCPB opened June 1, 1987, but the unit continues to be almost fully occupied. Humana's main referral asset, as well as the source of the confusion of referring entities, appears to be the reputation of its director, Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly previously directed a program at Lake Hospital which was identical to the program that he now directs at Humana. Lake Hospital currently has RTCPB operating under its auspices, but not Dr. Kelly. Nature of the FRTC Program FRTC's proposed program is designed to serve those persons in the designated age group who have psychiatric diagnoses of a severity requiring a long-term approach in a multidisciplinary structured living setting to facilitate recovery. It will not, however, treat adolescents with an active diagnosis of chemical dependency or substance abuse. It also only commits to 1.5 percent indigent care. The proposed FRTC program differs from an acute care setting in significant quantitative and qualitative ways, the most visible of which is that acute care psychiatric settings (either long- or short-term) are geared toward dealing with patients actively dangerous to property, themselves, or others, but patients whom it is reasonably assumed will respond primarily to physiologically-oriented physicians and registered nurses administering daily medication, treatment, and monitoring, as opposed to a long-term living arrangement emphasizing behaviorally-oriented group interaction as an alternative to parental care at home. FRTC will, however, accept patients with psychiatric diagnoses of effective disorders, depression, schizophrenia and impulse disorders and those who may be potentially harmful to themselves, others, or property for whom no other less intensive or less restrictive form of treatment would be predictably helpful. FRTC would fall on the continuum of care below an acute psychiatric facility such as Humana. Assessment of such a target group on a patient by patient basis is obviously subject to a wide variation of interpretation by qualified health care professionals, but FRTC anticipates both verifying referral diagnoses and assuring quality of care by insuring that each new patient is seen by a psychiatrist within 24 hours of admission, and by having each case reviewed by an independent utilization review committee. FRTC also plans to complete appropriate patient assessments and develop and update individual, integrated treatment programs. FRTC will provide, where appropriate, for continuity of care from previous acute care institutions through the FRTC program and out into more normal individual or family living arrangements. Parents will have to consent to their child's placement at FRTC. FRTC's program proposes an average length of stay of 365 days (one year) with a range of six months to two years. Based upon all the credible record evidence as a whole, including, but not limited to, the protestants' respective ALOS, this is a reasonable forecast despite contrary evidence as to Charter's experience at its "template" Virginia institution, Charter Colonial. FRTC's program components will include individual therapy, recreational therapy, occupational therapy, and general education. The general education component in FRTC's proposed program is more general and more open than that offered in acute care settings, such as Humana. FRTC's overall program will utilize a "levels" system of behavioral management based upon patients earning privileges, which levels system has a good patient rehabilitation and functional administrative track record in many different kinds of psychiatric health care facilities, including Humana and RTCPB. FRTC intends that each patient's program will be individualized according to age and program component directed to his/her diagnosis and each patient will receive individual, resident group, and family therapies. As to assessment, types of therapy, continuity of care, and general education provisions, FRTC's proposal is grossly consistent with that of its "template." To the extent there is evidence of inconsistencies between the two programs in the record, the FRTC proposal represents either improvements over, or refinements of, its template program which have been developed as Charter/FRTC has learned more about what actually "works" for the IRTP form of health care, or it represents changes to accommodate Florida's perception of what less restrictive but still intensive residential treatment should be, or it anticipates local community needs. Quality of Care The applicant's parent corporation is an experienced provider of many types of accredited psychiatric facilities. The type of quality assurance program proposed and the staff mix provide reasonable quality care assurances. Design, Construction, and Personnel Refinements to FRTC's original schematic take into consideration the influence that physical structure has on an Intensive Residential Treatment Program. Those refinements include modification of a multipurpose room into a half-court gymnasium, addition of a classroom, addition of a mechanical room, modification of the nursing station to decrease the amount of space, and the deletion of one seclusion room and addition of a four to six bed assessment unit. The modifications resulted in the addition of approximately 1,000 square feet to the original design. A minimum of four to six acres would be necessary to accommodate the modified design which totals approximately 32,000 square feet. Public areas, such as administration and support services, dining room, and housekeeping areas, are to the front; private areas, such as the nursing units, are to the back. The facility's middle area houses gym, classrooms, and occupational therapy areas. The location encourages residential community involvement. Each of three, 20-bed units is made up of a group of two consultation rooms, a galley, a laundry, a day room and core living space located directly across from the nursing station for maximum observation and efficiency. Each unit comprises a separate wing. Six handicapped accessible patient beds are contemplated; the building will be handicapped-accessible. The staffing projections have increased and the pattern has been minimally altered in the updates. The updated pro forma also modified the initial financial projections so as to increase salary expense and employee benefits based on this change in staffing. An increase in the total project cost impacted on depreciation, and interest expense changed with time. All these changes are reasonable and insubstantial. FRTC's design is adequate for providing a suitable environment for intensive residential treatment for children and adolescents even though it is not identical to Charter's "template" for residential treatment and even though Charter's extensive experience with acute care facilities has focused these changes in its residential treatment concepts. The parties stipulated to the adequacy of FRTC's proposed equipment list and costs. Total construction cost was demonstrated to be reasonably estimated at $2,078,000. The square footage costs of $64.86 per square foot represet an increase from the square footage costs contained in the original CON application. The original budget was updated based upon a three percent inflation factor and the addition of the approximately 1,000 square feet. The additional space is not a significant construction change. The total project costs of $4,728,000 are reasonable. The testimony of HRS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, John Griffin, who testified by deposition, (RTCPB's Exhibit 8, pp. 21-22) revealed no firm policy on what the agency, within its expertise, views as substantial and impermissible amendments to a CON application; HRS did not move at hearing to remand for further review; and the undersigned concludes that the changes in facility design, costs, and staffing do not represent significant changes which would be excludable as evidence and that they do represent permissible minor modifications and refinements of the original FRTC application. Site Availability No party contended that FRTC's application was a "site specific" application, that a residential treatment program is otherwise required to be "site specific," or that an IRTP CON is governed by a "site specific" rule or by "site specific" statutory criteria. Therefore, it was only necessary for FRTC in this noncomparative proceeding to establish that several suitable sites were available within the required geographic parameters at the financial amount allotted in FRTC's projections. FRTC did establish financially and geographically available and suitable sites through the testimony of Robert H. Ellzey, a qualified expert in commercial real estate values. The Non-Rule Need Policy There are no hospital licensed Intensive Residential Treatment Programs in Palm Beach County or in District IX. IRTPs are in a separate licensure category by law from psychiatric beds, acute care beds, and rehabilitation beds. There is a separate need methodology for long-term psychiatric beds and there are no CON licensed long-term psychiatric programs for children and adolescents in District IX, unless one considers Humana which is treating adolescents well beyond 30 or 90 days residency. HRS has no promulgated rule predicting need for IRTPs seeking specialty hospital licensure under Chapter 395, F.S. Subsequent to advice of its counsel that a CON must be obtained as a condition of IRTP licensure pursuant to Chapter 395, F.S., HRS elected to evaluate all IRTP CON applications in the context of the statutory criteria of Chapter 381, F.S., and in the context of HRS' non-rule policy establishing a rebuttable presumption of need for one "reasonably sized" IRTP in each HRS planning district. The May 5, 1988 Final Order in Florida Psychiatric Centers v. HRS, et al., DOAH Case No. 88- 0008R, held this non-rule policy invalid as a rule due to HRS' failure to promulgate it pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S., but that order also held the policy not to be invalid as contrary to Chapter 381, F.S. That Final Order intervened between the close of final hearing in the instant case and entry of the instant Recommended Order, however, it does not alter the need for the agency to explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case by case basis. HRS was unable to do so in the formal hearing in the instant case. Notwithstanding the oral testimony of Robert May and Elizabeth Dudek, and the deposition testimony of John Griffin, it appears that the non- rule policy is not based upon generally recognized health planning considerations, but solely on the agency's statutory interpretation of recent amendments to Chapter 395 and some vague perception, after internal agency discussions, that the policy is consistent with certain promulgated need rules and with certain other non-rule policies for other types of health care entities, which other non-rule policies were never fully enunciated or proved up in this formal hearing. The HRS non-rule policy was also not affirmatively demonstrated to be rational because it does not take into account the reasonableness of a proposed facility's average length of stay, referral sources, geographic access, or other factors common to duly promulgated CON rules. Numerical Need and Conformity to Applicable Health Plans FRTC sought to support HRS' non-rule policy on numerical need for, and definition of, a "reasonably sized" IRTP through the testimony of Dr. Ronald Luke, who was qualified as an expert in health planning, development of need methodologies, health economies, survey research, and development of mental health programs. In the absence of a finding of a rational non-rule policy on numerical need, Dr. Luke's evidence forms the cornerstone of FRTC's demonstration of numerical need. Through the report and testimony of Dr. Luke, and despite contrary expert health planning testimony, FRTC established the numerical need for, and reasonableness of, its 60 licensed IRTP beds in District IX with projected 60 percent occupancy in the first year and 50 percent in the second year of operation using two bed need methodologies. Dr. Luke ultimately relied on a utilization methodology based upon 1991 population projections. Dr. Luke used a census rate per 100,000 population of 21.58. This is appropriately and reasonably derived from national data for residential treatment patients aged 0-17, regardless of the fact that the types of residential treatment considered by the NIMH data base employed by Dr. Luke greatly vary in concept and despite HRS having not yet clearly defined the nature of the programs and services it expects to be offered by a Florida specialty hospital licensed IRTP. Therefrom, Dr. Luke derived an average daily census of 52 in 1991. That figure yields a bed sizing of between 58 and 61 beds, depending on whether an 85 percent or 90 percent occupancy factor is plugged in. Either 58 or 61 beds is within the range of ratios calculated by Dr. Luke's other methodology for currently licensed Florida IRTPs in other districts. Assuming a target occupancy rate of 85 percent and an ALOS of one year, Dr. Luke considered the gross District IX IRTP bed need to be 60. In the absence of any like program to assess occupancy for and in the presence of similar programs such as Humana operating at nearly full occupancy now and RTCPB forecasting its occupancy at 88 percent in 1990 if it were IRTP-licensed, it is found that 60 beds are justified. Since there are no IRTP beds licensed as specialty hospitals in the current district bed inventory, no adjustment of this figure must be made to account for existing licensed IRTP beds. Simply stated, this is a CON application for an IRTP, nothing more and nothing less, and the subtrahend to be subtracted from gross district bed need is zero when there is a zero specialty hospital licensed IRTP bed inventory. Luke's calculated gross need of 60 bed is also his net need and is accepted. Fifty beds is generally the minimum size HRS will approve to be feasible for any free standing facility to be eonomically efficient and to be able to benefit from economies of scale. This 50 bed concept is within the wide range of bed ratios that HRS implicitly has found reasonable in, previously- licensed IRTP CON approvals. Conformity With Applicable Health Plans Section 38l.705(1)(a), F.S., requires HRS to consider CON applications against criteria contained in the applicable State and District Health Plans. In this regard, neither the applicable State Health Plan nor the applicable District IX Local Health Plan make any reference to a need for intensive residential treatment facilities. The District IX Health Plan addresses the need for psychiatric and substance abuse services to be available to all individuals in District IX. FRTC's project addresses this goal only in part. The District Health Plan states that priority should be given to CON applicants who make a commitment to providing indigent care. FRTC proposes only 1.5 percent indigent care which works out to only 1/2 of the ALOS of one patient at the proposed facility and is hardly optimum, but in a noncomparative hearing, it stands alone as advancing the given accessibility goal within the plan. Objective 1.3 of the State Health Plan provides: Through 1987, additional long-term inpatient psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy for all existing and approved long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the HRS District is at least 80 percent. FRTC's project is neutral as to this goal. The District Plan also contains a goal for a complete range of health care services for the population of the district. FRTC advances this goal. The State Health Plan further provides: Goal 10: DEVELOP A COMPLETE RANGE OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN EACH HRS DISTRICT OBJECTIVE 10.1: Develop a range of essential mental health services in each HRS district by 1989. OBJECTIVE 10.3: Develop a network of residential treatment settings for Florida's severely emotionally disturbed children by 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.03A: Develop residential placements within Florida for all SED children currently receiving ing treatment in out-of-state facilities by 1990. The FRTC project advances these goals in part. To the extent SED patients placed outside the state for residential treatment services are HRS patients whom FRTC as yet has not contracted to treat, the FRTC project does not advance this goal. However, increased insurance reimbursement will advance accessibility for those SED children and adolescents in need of this type of care whose families have insurance coverage. The State Plan also emphasizes a goal for a continuum of care. The FRTC plan advances this goal. Financial Feasibility William S. Love, Senior Director of Hospital Operations for Charter, was accepted as an expert in health care finance. Mr. Love prepared the pro forma financial statement contained in the original CON application and the update of the pro forma in response to HRS' completeness questions. Mr. Love also had input into the updated financial information which increased salary and benefit expense. (See FOF No. 11). The revised pro forma utilized an assumption of gross patient revenues of $300 per day and a 365 day ALOS, both of which are reasonable and both of which support the rest of FRTC's assumptions (See FOF No. 9). Routine revenues are based on the types of routine services patients normally receive on a daily basis. Ancillary revenues are support revenues such as pharmacy charges, X-rays, lab charges, and other charges not generally utilized on a routine basis. The only charges to patients at the proposed FRTC facility are the routine and ancillary charges. The assumptions with regard to contractual adjustments are that there will be no Medicare utilization since the facility is projected for children and adolescents and no Medicaid since freestanding facilities in Florida are not eligible for Medicaid. Two percent of gross patient revenues are estimated to be contractual adjustments which relate to HMOs and PPOs. FRTC addresses indigent care by 1.5 percent of gross revenues which will be dedicated to Charter Care which is free care. The assumptions with regard to bad debt are that 8 percent of gross revenue will be the allowance for bad debt. An assumption of 20 percent of salaries was used for employee benefits which include the FICA tax, health insurance, dental insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits. Supplies and expenses were calculated as a function of patient day with a $90 per day estimate. Included in supplies and expenses are supplies utilized in the delivery of health care services as well as medical professional fees such as the half-time medical director and purchased services such as laundry, linen, speech and hearing services, utilities, telephone, malpractice insurance, repairs and maintenance. The depreciation assumptions are that the building would be depreciated over 40 years, fixed equipment over 20 years and major movable equipment over 10 years. Pre-opening expenses for the first 45 days of operation have been capitalized over 60 months with low amortization costs over 15 years. There is no income tax assumed in the first year but the assumption in subsequent years is that the tax rate will be 38 percent. The failure to assume a hospital tax is inconsequential. The assumptions for the second fiscal year are basically the same. Although staffing remained the same, the FTEs per occupied bed increased, and a 7 percent inflation factor was added. The project will be financially feasible even though the facility is pessimistically projecting a loss of $102,000 for the first year because a facility can suffer a loss in its first year of operation and remain financially feasible. The facility projects a $286,000 profit in its second year of operation. With regard to utilization by class of pay, FRTC has assumed that the insurance category represents 65.5 percent of total revenues projected and includes such things as commercial insurance, Blue Cross and any third party carrier other than Medicare and Medicaid. Assumptions with regard to the private pay are that 25 percent of the total revenues will be generated by private pay patients and would include the self pay portions of an insurance payor's bill, such as deductible and co-insurance. Bad debt was assumed to be 8 percent, and Charter Care or free care, 1.5 percent. FRTC's projected utilization by class of pay is reasonable and is supported by the protestants' current experience with commercial insurance utilization and reimbursement and the predicted recoveries if RTCPB were IRTP-licensed. In the second year of operation, the assumptions with regard to utilization by class of pay demonstrated an increase in the insurance category from 65.5 to 66.5 percent with everything else remaining the same except for a decrease in bad debt to 7 percent. The assumption with regard to a decrease in bad debt is based upon the establishment of referral patterns from acute psychiatric facilities, outpatient programs, mental health therapists, and miscellaneous programs. The assumption is that 65 percent of the patients would be covered by insurance, not that 65 percent of each bill would be paid by insurance. Charter's experience has been that a good portion of the deductible and co-insurance payments are collectible. FRTC did not assume payment from any governmental contracts or HRS reimbursement. FRTC's projected self pay percentages assumption reasonably contemplates the percentage of households in the district which can afford its projections for self pay. For purposes of evaluating the financial feasibility of this proposal, a management fee was not included because in looking at the financial feasibility of a facility the expenses of a corporate home office are incurred whether or not the facility is built. It was not appropriate to allocate a management fee to the hospital because it showed a loss in its first year of operation and a profit in its second. When the facility becomes profitable, FRTC anticipates passing the profit through to the corporation to help reduce the corporate overhead. If a management fee had been allocated to this facility, allocations would have had to have been made to the other Charter facilities to show where their management expense had decreased and their profitability increased. It would have been inappropriate to take these fixed expenses and allocate a portion of them to the proposed FRTC facility. In addition to the fact that the failure to include a management fee in the pro forma should not affect the feasibility of the project, Charter has good cause not to apply a $44 per patient day management fee in its IRTP. FRTC's categories of payor class are generally reasonable based in part on the results of a survey performed in Florida. FRTC's assumptions and calculations are reasonable, based upon the testimony of William S. Love and Dr. Ronald Luke, notwithstanding the testimony of Dan Sullivan, Donald Wilson, and Christopher Knepper, also qualified as experts. Specifically, it is found that Dr. Luke's assessment that the designation of a facility as a licensed specialty hospital has a beneficial effect on its ability to obtain insurance reimbursement for services, that reimbursement impacts to increase ALOS, and that the breakdown of sources of payment that FRTC has used is reasonable, is a credible assessment, supported elsewhere in the record. It is also found that Mr. Knepper's assessment for bad debt is inadequately supported and inconsistent with other evidence, and therefore not credible. Mr. Sullivan's testimony is not persuasive. Staffing and Recruitment Dr. Brett, a Charter regional director for hospital operations, was accepted as an expert in staffing psychiatric facilities including residential treatment centers. His distinctions between the acute care and residential types of facilities are corroborated and explained by other witnesses and evidence. Mr. Joyner was accepted as Charter's expert recruiter. Although the depth of Mr. Joyner's hands-on involvement in active recruitment is not extensive, the Charter network of manpower referrals and "head hunting" will obviously support this project. Upon the combined testimony of Dr. Brett, Mr. Joyner, and Paul Bodner, Charter's senior director of physician relations, there is sufficient evidence that FRTC can recruit a suitable staffing pattern to ensure quality of care (see FOF Nos. 9 and 10) in its proposed program, even if it has to hire from out of state and pay somewhat higher salaries due to some qualified manpower shortages in certain categories in Palm Beach County. In making this finding, the undersigned has considered the testimony of Donald Wilson concerning certain institution-specific recruiting problems of his principal, RTCPB, and the "step down" status of residential treatment as testified by Mary Certo, of Humana. Impact on Costs and Competition The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to attract patients with insurance coverage who would otherwise go to existing facilities for care, however, in light of the relatively consistent occupancy rates at Humana and RTCPB despite both their geographical proximity and the unique confusion of referrals arising over the relocation of Dr. Kelly, this impact is not altogether clear. Dr. Kelly's reputation will not be impacted by granting of a CON to FRTC. It is also not possible upon the basis of the record created in this hearing to factor out reimbursement differences inherent in Humana's current CON classification and RTCPB's circumstance as an unlicensed intensive residential treatment center. In any case, the negative impact upon Humana must be measured against the health planning goals expressed by several witnesses that it is desirable to substitute more suitable, less restrictive facilities for institutionalization of the severely emotionally disturbed child and adolescent whenever possible and that it is also desirable to encourage residential treatment upon a continuum of care basis after acute psychiatric care. The FRTC project will obviously increase the accessibility to this type of treatment for young people who have the appropriate insurance coverage. These goals are in conformity with the applicable health plans. The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to initially increase some costs of health services throughout the district because it will inflate some salary costs due to competition, but the negative impact will probably be short term.
Recommendation Upon a balanced consideration of all relevant criteria it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order approving FRTC's CON application for an IRTP, as updated, for licensure as a specialty hospital. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-2037 & 87-2050 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., with regard to the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) of FRTC: Covered in "issue" and FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 2. 3-7. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 8. Accepted in FOF 12. 9-12. Except as subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative, accepted in FOF 7-9. 13. Accepted in FOF 10. 14-17. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 7-11, 30. Although portions of the underlying data referred to in proposal 16 and by Mr. Joyner in his testimony was excluded from evidence, he was qualified as a recruitment expert and for the reasons set forth in FOF 30, his opinion is accepted. 18-19. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 23. Accepted in FOF 24. Accepted in FOF 25 and 29. Accepted in FOF 26 and 29. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 27. Except as mere argument or statement of position, accepted in FOF 26-27, and 29. 27-29. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 26-29. 30-31. Accepted in FOF 28. 32-40. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 9, 11, 21, 26-29. 41-44. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 29-32. 45-47. Rejected, as recital or summation of testimony and as part of preliminary agency review not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 48. Covered in FOF 7, 18-20, 22, and 26. 49-52. dejected as set out in "organic law and legislative background," "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15. See also COL. 53. Accepted in FOF 16. 54-58. Rejected in part and accepted in part as set out in FOF 14-15. Rejected where not supported in full by the record as a whole, where subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found and where mere recital of testimony. 59. Accepted in principle and modified to conform to the record in FOF 18-20, 31. 60-61. Accepted in part and rejected in part as stated in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and in FOF 14-16 and the COL. Accepted in FOF 15 and COL. Accepted in FOF 18-20, 31. 64-68. Rejected as unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 1, 7, 13-15 and 29, also in part as not supported by the record as a whole, and as primarily legal argument and recitation of testimony. Accepted in FOF 3-4 and 30. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 3-4, 7, 26, and 29. 71-74. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9 and 30-32. HRS' Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF): 1-3. Accepted in "organic law and legislative background." 4. (Two paragraphs) Accepted FOF 3-4. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. Accepted, FOF 29-32. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted, FOF 1. 10-18 & 20. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5, 6, 15, 26, 31. 19. Rejected as irrelevant. 21-28. Accepted in part as modified to conform to the record as a whole in FOF 6-9, 30-31. The irrelevant, unnecessary or subordinate material has also been rejected. 29-31. Accepted in FOF 4, 9, 21, 26, 29-31. 32-35. Accepted in FOF 7-9. 36-41. Accepted in FOF 7-9 as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application, in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 42-45. Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 9-11, 21, 23, 30 and 32. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 22, 26. 49-52. Accepted in FOF 3, 4, 21-29. Assuming, based on the transcript reference, that this proposal refers to FRTC's pro forma, this proposal is accepted but unnecessary for the reasons set forth in rulings on HRS' PFOF 36-45. See FOF 11 and 21-29. Accepted in FOF 13-15. 55-58. Rejected as unnecessary. 59. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 13-15. 60-62. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-14, as mere recital of testimony and statements of position. 63. Accepted in FOF 29. 64-65. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Accepted in FOF 7-9. Accepted that HRS made this assumption but it fails to explicate the non-rule policy. See FOF 13-14. Accepted in FOF 16. Rejected as a statement of position or COL. Peripherally, see COL. Accepted in FOF 13-14 but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. Rejected in FOF 13-14. 72-74. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 75-76. Accepted in FOF 17-20. This is a subordinate definition and not a FOF. See FOF 30-31 and COL. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 17-20, 31. Accepted in FOF 10. Accepted in FOF 13-15. Accepted as stated in the "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15 and in the COL. 82-85. Covered in FOF 3-6, 13-15. 86. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 87-88. Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary. 89. Accepted in FOF 29. 90-96. Accepted as modified to conform to the record evidence as a whole and FOF 15-16 and to reject subordinate and unnecessary material. Accepted without any connotations of the word "therefore" in FOF 4, 7-9, 21 and 29. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Accepted in "organic and legislative background" and FOF 13-15. Rejected as not established upon the record as a whole; unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of position only. Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of RTCPB and Humana 1-2 Accepted in FOF 1. 3-4. Accepted in FOF 2. 5-6. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. 7. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 5-6. 8-13. Accepted in part and rejected in part as set out under "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 3-6, 13-15, and the COL. 14-18. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 1, 7-9, 11, 21-29. 19-27. Rejected as irrelevant preliminary action to this de novo proceeding. 28-36. Rejected in part and accepted in part upon the compelling competent, substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set forth in FOF 13-14. Also as to 33 see FOF 15. 37-52. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-16 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence of record as a whole. Irrelevant, unnecessary and subordinate material has been rejected, as has mere argument of counsel. Accepted in FOF 17. Rejected in FOF 20, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 20, 31. Excepting the mere rhetoric, accepted in FOF 18, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 7, 18-20, 26, 31. 58-59. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 17-20, 26, Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as recital of testimony and argument 62-63. Rejected as unnecessary. 64-67. Accepted in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The first sentence is rejected as cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. Rejected in FOF 4, 21. Accepted in FOF 4 and 21, 29. Rejected as unnecessary Accepted in FOF 26. Rejected in FOF 15-20, 31. Rejected as unnecessary in a noncomparitive hearing. 75-87. Except as irrelevant, unnecessary, or subordinate, accepted in FOF 5-9, 30, 31. Rejected in part as unnecessary and in part as not comporting with the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 7-10 and 30. Accepted in FOF 1, 5-9. 90-92. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Rejected in FOF 5-6. Rejected as subordinate. 95-98. Accepted in FOF 5-9. 99-102. Rejected as unnecessary. 103. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9. 104-118. Except as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, these proposals are covered in FOF 5-9, 30-31. Except as Subordinate, covered in FOF 6 and 31. Accepted in part in FOF 5-9, 21-29, otherwise rejected as misleading. Except as subordinate, accepted in FOF 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 21-29. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 21-29. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary in part and not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in 21-29. 127-128. These proposals primarily recite testimony by Mr. Grono, an administrator of a psychiatric hospital for very severely disturbed persons (Grant Center). This evidence by itself is not persuasive in light of Dr. Luke's study and other admissions of the parties referenced in FOF 21-29. Upon the greater weight of contrary evidence, it is rejected. 129. Rejected as subordinate except partly accepted in FOF 29. 130-133. Rejected upon the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 9, 11 and 21-29. 134, 139. Rejected as legal argument without citation. 135-138. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 140-144. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence and as partly mere legal argument. See FOF 9, 21-29. 145. The first sentence is rejected upon the reference to PFOF 140-144 for the same reasons given above and the remainder is rejected as subordinate. 146. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 147. Rejected as mere legal argument without citation. 148-149. Rejected in FOF 21-29, particularly 27 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. The mere legal argument is also rejected. 150-157. Rejected as set out in FOF 28 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. Uncited argument and statements of position have likewise bean rejected. 158, 160. Rejected as mere argument without citation. 159. Rejected as subordinate and not dispositive of any material issue at bar in FOF 23. 161. Rejected as mere argument. 162-167. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in FOF 30-32. Also 167 is rejected as mere argument without citation. 168. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 30-32. 169. Accepted but subordinate. 170. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 31. 171-180. Covered in FOF 30-32. 181-185. Rejected as contrary to the evidence in part and in part unnecessary and cumulative to the ruling in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 7, 10-11, 21, 23, 30-32. 186-188. Rejected in FOF 7, 10 and 30 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. 189. Rejected as unnecessary 190. Rejected in FOF 30. 191-392. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 30-32. 193. Rejected in FOF 30-32. 194-195. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, rejected in the several references to future establishment of referral networks. See FOF 21, 27. 196-197 & 199. Rejected as unnecessary 198. Rejected as irrelevant in part and immaterial in part upon the rulings in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 200. Rejected as unnecessary 201-202. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 26-27 and 31, but cumulative. 203. Covered in the COL. Rejected in FOF 21-22. 204. Rejected as mere argument without citation. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE, CAROTHERS & PROCTOR 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire BONNER & O'CONNEL 900 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH & MADSEN 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred W Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency 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
Findings Of Fact Status of the case South Broward Hospital District (SBHD) is a special taxing district created in 1947 by a special act of the Florida Legislature to provide health services to the residents of South Broward County and surrounding areas. SBHD is a designated disproportionate share provider of medical services to the indigent, and currently operates two Class I General Hospitals in Broward County, to wit: Memorial Hospital, located in Hollywood, and Memorial Hospital West, located in Pembroke Pines. Pertinent to this case, SBHD was authorized to establish Memorial Hospital West by Certificate of Need (CON) number 4019 issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (the predecessor to respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration) on December 21, 1988. The certificate's project description read as follows: Construction of a new 100 bed satellite hospital facility, which will be composed of 92 medical surgical and 8 intensive care beds, in southwestern Broward County, HRS District 10, via the transfer of 100 beds from an existing facility, Memorial Hospital, Hollywood, and retiring an additional 25 medical/surgical beds from the existing facility upon the opening of the satellite facility . . . . By letter of June 3, 1992, respondent forwarded to SBHD License No. 3288, effective May 12, 1992, which authorized it to operate Memorial Hospital West as a Class I General hospital with 100 acute care beds. Contemporaneously, respondent forwarded to SBHD License No. 3289, effective May 12, 1992, which reduced Memorial Hospital's licensed acute care beds to 489, "reflecting the transfer of 100 acute beds to Memorial Hospital West, and the delicensure of 25 additional acute care beds," "[p]ursuant to Certificate of Need Number 4019." SBHD filed a timely petition challenging the respondent's issuance of License No. 3289, and, more particularly, the provision in such license reflecting "the delicensure of 25 additional acute care beds." It was SBHD's position that the provision of CON 4019 which required the retirement of the additional 25 beds upon the opening of Memorial Hospital West was invalid or, alternatively, that the CON should be modified to delete such requirement. Respondent disagreed with SBHD's assertion that the provision of the CON requiring retirement of the additional 25 beds was invalid and contended that SBHD's request for modification could not be accommodated under the modification provisions of Rule 59C-1.019, Florida Administrative Code, but required certificate of need review. Accordingly, these formal proceedings to review, de novo, the agency's decision were commenced at SBHD's request. The quest for CON 4019 The quest by SBHD to construct a satellite hospital in southwest Broward County had its genesis in January 1984 when the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) evidenced its intention to deny SBHD's application for CON 2834 and SBHD requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. That matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and designated DOAH Case No. 84-0235. Thereafter, in 1985, SBHD filed another application with HRS, designated as CON application No. 4019, for authorization to develop and operate a 100-bed satellite hospital in southwest Broward County by transferring 100 beds from Memorial Hospital. After HRS's initial denial of that application, SBHD requested a formal hearing and the matter was referred to DOAH. That case was assigned DOAH Case No. 85-3940, and was consolidated with the other application of SBHD, DOAH Case No. 84-0235. On April 11, 1986, SBHD updated its two applications to construct the satellite hospital, by proposing to transfer 100 beds from Memorial Hospital to the new facility, which would be composed of 92 medical/surgical beds and 8 intensive care beds. Subsequently, SBHD agreed to the retirement of 25 additional medical/surgical beds from Memorial Hospital upon the opening of its satellite facility, HRS agreed to support such project, and SBHD's application was duly updated. Accordingly, when the final hearing was held in DOAH Case Nos. 84-0235 and 85-3940 on September 12-16, 1986, October 22, 1986, and December 1, 1986, the issue was: . . . whether South Broward Hospital District's (District) application for a certificate of need to build and operate a satellite facility in southwest Broward County by transferring 100 beds and retiring 25 medical/surgical beds from its existing facility should be granted. On August 4, 1987 a recommended order was rendered in DOAH Case Nos. 84-0235 and 85-3940, which recommended that SBHD's application be denied. While recommending denial, such order ultimately metamorphosed into a final order, discussed infra, granting SBHD's application, and adopting a number of the findings of fact set forth in the recommended order. Those findings adopted included the recognition of the agency's evolving policy relating to bed transfers and relocation, as well as its consideration of a reduction of excess capacity within the district as affecting its decision to support such transfer. Specifically, the order noted: The Department has formulated a draft policy with respect to standards for evaluating applications to transfer beds or convert facilities. This policy was first written on August 7, 1986, and is based on the agency's prior experience in health planning. The Department's general policy for transfers and conversions is to try to "work off" any overbedding in a service district when approving transfers by requiring bed retirement as a condition to the approval of transfers. This strategy is the Department's attempt to reduce the excess of licensed and approved medical/surgical beds. The Department does not believe it possesses statutory authority to delicense acute care beds or retire acute care beds. Voluntary reduction of surplus beds in conjunction with applications to transfer beds or convert facilities provides one means for reduction of the number of beds in a service district. While the hearing officer observed that the agency did not believe it possessed the statutory authority to require the retirement or delicensure of acute care beds as a precondition for approval of a CON application, such observation, considering other findings of the hearing officer and the proof in this case, does not suggest that a proposed reduction in beds was not a legitimate factor for the agency to consider when evaluating an application and deciding whether it does or does not, on balance, satisfy relevant statutory and rule criteria. 1/ Indeed, one criteria to be considered in evaluating a CON application is its consistency with the State and Local Health Plan. At the time SBHD's application was reviewed, the State Health Plan set an appropriate ratio of medical/surgical beds to the population as a ratio of 4.11 to 1,000. Broward County (District X) was significantly overbedded at the time, with a medical/surgical bed ratio of approximately 5.1 to 1,000 and the Local Health Plan encouraged a reduction of licensed beds to achieve a ratio of 4.5 to 1,000 by 1988. Moreover, a proposed reduction in beds could also influence other criteria, such as, access, efficiency, and utilization. Following rendition of the recommended order on August 4, 1987, SBHD's pursuit of CON 4019 to final order took a tortuous route. In this regard, a final order of the agency dated August 18, 1988 observed: A prior invalid order of October 7, 1987, was vacated by order of February 29, 1988. After the order of February 29 was submitted to the First District Court of Appeal pursuant to relinquishment of its jurisdiction, the appeal of the final order was dismissed. Petitioner [SBHD] then moved for entry of a new final order. By order of June 27, 1988, the case was then remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for reevaluation of the merits of the application and additional findings based on the existing record, consistent with the rulings on exceptions by the Department contained in the Order of Remand. The Division of Administrative Hearings, by order of July 26, 1988, declined remand and ordered that the record be returned to the Department for entry of final order. The order then proceeded to adopt, except as specifically noted, the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the recommended order, and granted SBHD's application for CON 4019. SBHD's pursuit of its CON had not, however, met fruition. The final order of August 18, 1988, "was quashed on procedural grounds by the First District Court of Appeal in an Order dated September 15, 1988". Subsequently, by "order dated December 13, 1988, the District Court dismissed [the case] on the basis of a voluntary dismissal by the parties". The agency then observed that "it is now time for the disposition of the application for CON 4019." Accordingly, by final order rendered December 21, 1988, the agency resolved: . . . I conclude that CON 4019 should be approved for the reasons set forth in the Order rendered August 18, 1988. Therefore, the Order rendered August 18, 1988, is incorporated by reference. Based on the foregoing, it is ADJUDGED that the application of South Broward Hospital District for certificate of need number 4019 to construct a satellite facility in south- western Broward County be APPROVED. Consistent with that final order, CON 4019, dated December 29, 1988, with an issue date of December 21, 1988, was granted to SBHD. As heretofore noted, the certificate, consistent with SBHD's updated application, included the requirement that an additional 25 medical/surgical beds would be retired at Memorial Hospital upon the opening of Memorial Hospital West. The validity of the provision of CON 4019 requiring retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds. Here, SBHD has challenged the propriety of respondent's delicensure of 25 medical/surgical beds at Memorial Hospital based on the contention that the provision of CON 4019, which provided for the retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds upon the opening of Memorial Hospital West, was invalid. SBHD's contention, as well as the proof offered to support it, is unpersuasive. In support of its contention, SBHD offered proof a hearing that it was HRS that initiated the proposal to retire beds, and that HRS did not have the unilateral authority to "require" the retirement or delicensure of beds as a prerequisite or condition for approval of a CON application. 2/ Accepting that HRS initiated the dialogue, as well as the fact that HRS could not unilaterally require SBHD to retire beds, does not, however, compel the conclusion that the provision for the retirement of beds was invalid. To the contrary, as heretofore discussed, overbedding in District X was of legitimate concern to HRS, a reduction of beds was an appropriate consideration in the course of CON review, and SBHD elected to update/amend its application to include such a reduction and thereby garner HRS support in the face of opposition from other competitors. Accordingly, that HRS could not "require" SBHD to retire beds is irrelevant. SBHD updated/amended its application and affirmatively proposed, as part of its project, a reduction of beds. Such reduction was an integral part of the project reviewed and ultimately approved, and was a factor appropriately considered by the agency in evaluating the application. Finally, to support its contention that the provision of CON 4019 requiring the retirement of 25 beds was invalid, SBHD suggests, essentially, that the update/amendment of its application to include such a proposal was inappropriate or contrary to law. Such contention, as well as the proof offered to support it, is likewise unpersuasive. Rather, the credible proof demonstrates that, at all times material to the subject application, HRS had no policy and there existed no rule or statute, that precluded an update or an amendment to an application for a CON during the course of an administrative proceeding. Accordingly, the amendment by SBHD of its application to include a provision for the retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds was not improper, and such provision can hardly be characterized as invalid. 3/ The request to modify CON 4019 to delete the requirement that 25 medical/surgical beds be retired. Accepting the validity of the provision of CON 4019 requiring the retirement of 25 medical/surgical beds, and therefore the propriety of the agency's decision to delicense those beds, SBHD has requested that the CON be modified to delete such requirement due to changed circumstances since its issuance. The agency opposes SBHD's request, contending that the change in bed capacity requires CON review. Pertinent to this case, Rule 59C-1.019, Florida Administrative Code, establishes the procedure and the circumstances under which a certificate of need holder may seek a "modification" of a certificate of need. For purposes of the rule, "modification" is defined as: . . . an alteration to an issued, valid certificate of need or to the condition or conditions on the face of a certificate of need for which a license has been issued, where such an alteration does not result in a project subject to review as specified in . . . subsection 408.036(1) . . . Florida Statutes. Rule 59C-1.019(1), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection 408.036(1), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: . . . all health-care-related projects, as described in paragraphs (a)-(n), are subject to review and must file an application for a certificate of need with the department. The department is exclusively responsible for determining whether a health-care- related project is subject to review under ss. 381.701-381.715. * * * (e) Any change in licensed bed capacity. In this case, the agency contends that the CON cannot be modified to delete the 25-bed retirement provision because such alteration would result in a "change in licensed bed capacity," and therefore a project subject to CON review. Contrasted with the agency's position, SBHD contends that it timely challenged the agency's decision to delicense the 25 beds, based on its contention that the provision requiring the retirement of beds was invalid, and "there can be no actual change in licensed bed capacity at Memorial Hospital prior to final resolution of . . . this proceeding." [SBHD proposed recommended order, at p.17]. As stated by SBHD, Rather than seeking to change its licensed bed capacity, SBHD is opposing a change in its licensed bed capacity in order to maintain the status quo. [SBHD proposed recommended order, at p. 17]. Considering the provisions of law and analysis, as discussed in the conclusions of law infra, it is concluded that the agency's position is founded upon a reasonable interpretation of law and is, therefor, accorded deference. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing SBHD's protest to the delicensure of 25 acute care beds at Memorial Hospital, and denying SBHD's request to modify certificate of need number 4019 to delete the requirement that 25 acute care beds be retired. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of September 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September 1994.
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether proposed amendments to Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), and (p) F.A.C. relating to certificates of need for hospital inpatient general psychiatric services, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, as defined in Section 120.52(8), F.S.
Findings Of Fact Metamorphosis of the Rules Prior to 1983, hospitals were not separately licensed, and certificates of need (CON) were not required for the designation of beds for psychiatric and substance abuse services. In 1983, statutory amendments to Chapter 381, F.S. addressed psychiatric beds as reviewable projects in the CON program. In 1983, HRS adopted rules establishing four new categories of beds, now found in Rules 10-5.011(1)(o), (p), and (q), F.A.C.: Short-term psychiatric, long-term psychiatric, and short and long-term substance abuse. At the time that the categories were created, HRS conducted an inventory of the hospitals, asking how many beds were designated in each category. Based on the responses, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, future projections of need were made and applications were considered for CONs. Another category of psychiatric beds was not included in the 1983 rules. Intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents were created by statute in 1982, and are defined in Section 395.002(8), F.S. as: a specialty hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals which provides 24-hour care and which has the primary functions of diagnosis and treatment of patients under the age of IS having psychiatric disorders in order to restore such patients to an optimal level of functioning. These facilities, called IRTFs, may become licensed as hospitals pursuant to Section 395.003(2)(f), F.S., but as hospitals they must obtain CON approval pursuant to Sections 381.702(7) and (12), F.S. and Section 381.706(1) (b), F.S. IRTFs have no statutory or regulatory restrictions on length of stay and were approved by HRS at one time under an unwritten policy that there be one such facility available in each HRS planning district, without regard to the availability of other long or short term psychiatric programs. In 1985, HRS proposed a rule amendment which would have eliminated the short and long term distinction, as well as the distinction between psychiatric services and substance abuse services. Six months later, the proposed rule amendment was withdrawn. It was highly controversial; several challenges were filed; objections were made by various local health councils; and a new administrator took over. The agency decided to rework its proposed change~;. The agency next began the process of revision in 1987, and in 1988 convened a workshop group to review an issue paper prepared by agency staff. Another work group met in 1989 to consider the consolidation of psychiatric and substance abuse rules. HRS staff reviewed literature on the subjects of substance abuse and psychiatric services, including literature relating to access by indigent patients and the provision of services to children and adolescents. Staff prepared rule drafts which were circulated in- house, including the alcohol, drug abuse and mental health program office; and to such outside groups as the Association of Voluntary Hospitals of Florida, the Florida Hospital Association and the League of Hospitals. The proposed rule amendments which are the subject of this proceeding were filed on January 19, 1990 (substance abuse), and on January 26, 1990 (inpatient psychiatric services) in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Parties HRS administers the CON program pursuant to Section 381.701, et seq., F.S. (1989). The CON program regulates entry into the Florida health care market by providers through review and approval of certain capital expenditures, services and beds. The petitioner, Florida League of Hospitals, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation which is organized and maintained for the benefit of investor-owned hospitals which comprise its membership. The remaining petitioners and intervenors are current providers of hospital inpatient psychiatric services, long and short term, and of inpatient substance abuse services, long and short term. The petitioners and intervenors are all substantially affected by the proposed rules and have stipulated to the standing of all parties in this proceeding. Abolishing Distinctions Between Long-Term & Short-Term Psychiatric Beds "Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services" is defined in existing rule 10-5.011(1)(o)1, FAC, as follows: Short term hospital inpatient psychiatric services means a category of services which provides a 24-hour a day therapeutic milieu for persons suffering from mental health problems which are so severe and acute that they need intensive, full-time care. Acute psychiatric inpatient care is defined as a service not exceeding three months and averaging length of stay of 30 days or less for adults and a stay of 60 days or less for children and adolescents under 18 years. "Long term psychiatric services" is defined in existing rule 10- 5.011(1)(p)1., FAC as a category of services which provides hospital based inpatient services averaging a length of stay of 90 days. Neither rule addresses services to adults with an average length of stay (ALOS) of 30-90 days, or services to children and adolescents with a 60-90 day ALOS. Because of this, and the "averaging" process, long term hospitals legitimately serve "short term" patients and short term hospitals may serve "long term" patients. One party has calculated than a long term facility could legally provide short term services for 80% of its patients, and long term services for only 20% of its patients and still have an ALOS of 90 days. Under the existing rules a facility must file a CON application to convert from long term to short term beds, or vice versa, and is subject to sanctions for failure to comply with the designation on its CON. The proposed changes would repeal rule 10-5.011(1) (p), FAC regarding long term services, and would amend rule 10- 5.011(1) (o), FAC to delete the definition of short term services, thereby permitting facilities to serve patients without regard to length of stay. The proposed changes are supported by several factors upon which a reasonable person could rely. Substantial changes have occurred in the last decade in clinical practices and in third party reimbursement to reduce the ALOS for hospital inpatient psychiatric care. Prior to the 1960s, there was no distinction between long and short term care, as all hospital based care was long term with an emphasis on psychoanalytic therapy. Beginning in the 1960s, the concept of community mental health programs evolved with an emphasis on deinstitutionalization of patients in large public "asylums" and with a goal of treatment in the least restrictive environment. In more recent years the trend has spread to the private sector. Improvements in the availability and use of psychiatric drugs, the use of outpatient care or partial hospitalization, and improved follow up care have led to a dramatic decrease in ALOS. Long term care is costly, and whether third party payors have been a driving force, or are merely responding to the trends described above, long term inpatient reimbursement is virtually nonexistent. During the 19805, most insurance companies imposed a 30-day limit on psychiatric inpatient care or imposed monetary limits which would have effectively paid for less than a 90-day term. CHAMPUS, the program providing insurance to military dependents, was providing long term coverage in 1982, but by 1986 its coverage was rarely available for more than 30-60 days, and today, under CHAMPUS' case management system, 30 days is a "luxurious amount". Other large third-party payors such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield have similar limits or aggressively use case management (the close scrutiny of need on a case by case basis) to limit reimbursement for inpatient care. Of the two or three long term facilities in existence at the time that HRS' rules were originally adopted, only one, Anclote Manor still reported an ALOS of over 90 days by 1989, dropping from an ALOS of 477.9 days in 1986 to 145.4 days in 1989. At the same time its occupancy rate dropped below 50%. There is an interesting dialogue among experts as to whether there still exists a clinical distinction between long term and short term inpatient psychiatric care. Studies at the Florida Mental Health Institute found no difference in rate of rehospitalization over a 12 month period between patients who were in a nine week program and patients from Florida State Hospital with a 500 day length of stay. Some mental health practitioners are looking now at treating the chronic psychiatric patient with repeated short term hospital stays and less intensive care between episodes, rather than a single long term inpatient stay. Other practitioners maintain that a long term psychiatric problem is behavioral in nature and requires a total life readjustment and longer length of stay. Whichever practice may be preferable, the facts remain that fewer and fewer mental patients are being treated with long term hospitalization. The proposed rules would not foreclose any facility from providing long term care, if it finds the need. To the extent that a clinical distinction exists between short and long term care, the existing rules do not address that distinction, except from a wholly arbitrary length of stay perspective. The existing rules no longer serve valid health care objectives. Existing providers with short term CONs are concerned that the allowing long term facilities to convert will further glut an underutilized market and will result in an increase in vacant beds and a rise in the cost of health services, contrary to the intent of the CON program. Intensive residential treatment facilities (IRTFs), which will be folded into the need methodology for children and adolescent beds, have no current restrictions on length of stay and may already compete with impunity with the short term providers. Moreover, long term facilities are also providing substantial short term care as a result of the trends discussed above. HRS has not consistently enforced the length of stay restrictions of long term providers' CONs. Whether those CONs were improvidently granted is beside the point. The capital costs have already been incurred; the beds are available; and the beds are being used, in part, for short term services. Abolishing the distinction is a rational approach to current conditions. And in determining that all existing providers would be placed in the same position regarding length of stay, HRS avoids the regulatory nightmare of trying to enforce limitations on existing providers and approving new beds without limitations. Creating a Distinction Between Adult and Children/Adolescent Beds Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)3.c. creates a CON distinction between general psychiatric services for adults, and those services for children and adolescents. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., as proposed, would create separate need criteria for hospital inpatient general psychiatric services for adults and for children/adolescents. Adolescents are defined in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o)2.a., as persons age 14 through 17 years. Persons over 17 years are adults, and under 14 years are children. There are valid clinical reasons to distinguish between programs fob the separate age groups. Although there is some overlap, differing therapies are appropriate with different ages. The types of services offered to adults are not the same as those which are offered to children. Children, for example, often receive academic educational services while being hospitalized. Adults receive career or vocational counseling and marriage counseling. The required separation by age categories would remove some flexibility from providers. However, this is offset by the Department's valid need to track for planning purposes inpatient services to children and adolescents separately from those provided to adults. Based on anecdotal evidence, HRS' Office of Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office is concerned about the possible overutilization of hospital inpatient services for children and adolescents and the potential that when insurance reimbursement expires they are discharged without clinical bases. Taking Inventory Under the proposed rule, in order to separately regulate adult and children/adolescent beds, HRS will fix an inventory of uses as of the time that the rule takes effect. For facilities with CONs which already allocate beds between the two groups, the proposed rule will have no effect. For facilities without a designation, as long as adults and children/adolescents are kept in separate programs, the allocation can now be mixed and changed at will. The rule amendment will freeze that use in place. HRS has conducted a preliminary survey to determine the existing uses of psychiatric, substance abuse and residential treatment program beds. The survey of approximately 120 facilities is complete, but is not intended to limit those facilities unless their CON already provides a limit. A final inventory will be taken after the proposed rules become effective. The inventory will be published, and providers will be given an opportunity to contest its findings. The ultimate outcome will be amended CONs and licenses which reflect each facility's mix of adult and children/adolescent beds. The process is a fair and reasonable means of commencing separate regulation of services to these age groups. The Definitions Proposed rules 10-5.011(1)(o)2.1., 2.p., and 2.t.) define "hospital inpatient general psychiatric services", "psychiatric disorder" and "substance abuse", respectively. Each of these provisions defines the terms by reference to classifications contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases (DSM-III-R Manual) and equivalent classifications contained- in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 Codes). The rule as originally proposed included the phrase "or its subsequent revisions", after incorporating the manuals by reference. In testimony, and in the parties second agreement (Hearing Office exhibit 3) the phrase is deleted. However, it still appears in proposed rule 10-5.011(1) (o)2.1., perhaps inadvertently. The DSM-III-R is a generally recognized manual for the classification of mental disorders and is widely used by clinicians and medical records professionals to categorize the conditions of patients. The ICD-9 codes are broader than just mental disorders, but they have a section on mental disorders with numbers that are identical to those in the DSM-III-R. Although the manuals are complex and subject to interpretation, clinicians are accustomed to their use and they provide a reasonable guide as to the services which may be provided in an inpatient substance abuse program, as distinguished from an inpatient psychiatric program. Advertising Limited Proposed rule 10-5.011(1)(o)3.d. (as amended in the parties second agreement, Hearing Officer exhibit #3), provides: D. Advertising of services. The number of beds for adult or for children and adolescent hospital inpatient general psychiatric services shall be indicated on the face of the hospital's license. Beds in intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents which are licensed as specialty hospital beds will be indicated as intensive residential treatment program beds on the face of the hospital's license. Only hospitals with separately-licensed hospital inpatient general psychiatric services, including facilities with intensive residential treatment programs for children and adolescents which are licensed as specialty hospitals, can advertise to the public the availability of hospital inpatient general psychiatric services. A hospital with separately licensed hospital inpatient general psychiatric services that does not have a certificate of need for hospital inpatient substance abuse services may advertise that they [sic] provide services for patients with a principal psychiatric diagnosis excluding substance abuse and a secondary substance abuse disorder. The Department does not currently have CON, licensure, or other rules which limit the ability of a health care provider to advertise its services, and has never used advertising as a factor in conducting CON review for any proposed services. HRS included provisions regarding advertising in its proposed rules because it had evidence that existing facilities have used misleading advertisements. The evidence came from other providers, rather than consumers. However, it is the consumer whom the agency feels may be confused by advertising which implies that services are available when such services cannot be legally provided under the facility's license. The advertising provision is prospective in nature, seeking to prevent licensed providers from advertising services for which they are not licensed. The provisions do not relate to CON review, and the staff is unclear as to how the rule would be implemented. Licensing and CON review are two separate functions within the agency. Although the term is not defined in the proposed rule, advertising broadly includes word of mouth referrals and public presentations by professionals in the community, as well as traditional media and written advertisements. Properly utilized, advertising helps consumers exercise choice and gain access to needed services. Improper advertising is subject to the regulation of federal and state agencies other than the department. New Need Methodology, with Preferences Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4., deletes the existing population ratio methodology and creates a need formula based upon use rate, for adult and children/adolescent inpatient psychiatric services. Certain preferences are also described. 34. Rule 10-5.011(1) (o)4.e.(III) provides: In order to insure access to hospital inpatient general psychiatric services for Medicaid-eligible and charity care adults, forty percent of the gross bed need allocated to each district for hospital inpatient general psychiatric services for adults should be allocated to general hospitals. The same provision for children and adolescent services is found in rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.h.(III). Medicaid reimbursement is not available for inpatient services in a specialty hospital. 35. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.i. provides: Preferences Among Competing Applicants for Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Services. In weighing and balancing statutory and rule review criteria, preference will be given to applicants who: Provide Medicaid and charity care days as a percentage of its total patient days equal to or greater than the average percentage of Medicaid and charity care patient days of total patient days provided by other hospitals in the district, as determined for the most recent calendar year prior to the year of the application for which data are available from the Health Care Cost Containment Board. Propose to serve the most seriously mentally ill patients (e.g. suicidal patients; patients with acute schizophrenia; patients with severe depression) to the extent that these patients can benefit from a hospital-based organized inpatient treatment program. Propose to service Medicaid-eligible persons. Propose to service individuals without regard to their ability to pay. Provide a continuum of psychiatric services for children and adolescents, including services following discharge. The preferences are similar to those in CON rules relating to other types of health services and are intended to implement, in part, the legislative mandate that the agency consider an applicant's ". . . past and proposed provision of health care services to medicaid patients and the medically indigent." Section 381.705(1) (n), F.S. Under Medicaid reimbursement general hospitals are paid a set per diem based on a variety of services provided to all Medicaid patients, regardless of actual cost of the individual service. As psychiatric services are generally less costly than other services on a per diem basis, hospitals may recoup a greater percentage of their costs in serving Medicaid psychiatric patients. This and the fact that public hospitals receive some governmental subsidies do not obviate the need for incentives in the CON program. Not all of the charity care provided by these hospitals is funded and a large amount is written off. Although Petitioners argue that the preferences are not needed, or are too generous, none provide competent evidence that the facilities who do not enjoy the preferences are unduly prejudiced. The 40% allocation of bed need to general hospitals is a guideline, not a maximum, as applied by the agency, and presumes that there are general hospitals competing in any batch in question. It is not intended to frustrate a separate section of the rule which allows a hospital with at least an 85% occupancy rate to expand regardless of need shown in the formula and the occupancy rate district-wide. See 10- 5.011(1) (o)4.d. and g. "Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes" The proposed rules contain three provisions relating to a hospital's evaluation of its patients' treatment outcomes. Rule 10-5.011(1) (o)3.i, includes among "required services", ". . . an overall program evaluation of the treatment outcomes for discharged patients to determine program effectiveness." Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)8.j., requires in the application, A description of the methods to be used to evaluate the outcome of the treatments provided and to determine the effectiveness of the program, including any summary evaluation outcome results for hospital inpatient psychiatric services provided at other facilities owned or operated by the applicant in Florida and other states. The data shall exclude patient specific information. Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)9.e., imposes a similar additional requirement in applications from providers seeking more beds: A summary description of any treatment outcome evaluation of the hospital inpatient general psychiatric services provided at the facility for which additional beds are requested, for children, adolescents or adults as applicable to the facility for the 12-month period ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed bed need pool. The purpose of these requirements, according to HRS, is to insure that hospitals will know whether its patients are better off when they leave than when they were admitted to the program. Most hospitals have such knowledge. The terms, "outcome determination", "summary evaluation outcome results", "summary description of treatment outcome evaluation" and "overall program evaluation of treatment outcomes", are nowhere defined in the proposed rules, and the department intends to leave to each applicant or provider the methodology for determining whether its patients are "better off" for having been in its program. Hospitals do not routinely evaluate their patients after discharge and such follow up would be difficult and costly. Most hospitals do, however, establish a treatment plan upon admission, continue to review and revise that plan as needed throughout treatment, and determine the patients' readiness for discharge based on the goals successfully attained. This is the process described by Florida Hospital's Center of Psychiatry Administrative Director. The rules require no more than a description similar to that provided by Florida Hospital. The rules set no standards and do not dictate that follow- up of discharged patients be accomplished, even though post discharge evaluation may be of value and is generally accepted as the best tool for measuring treatment effectiveness. The measurement of treatment outcome is an inexact process and relies on a series of subjective standards which need to be described. HRS does not intend to set those standards and, other than have its applicants demonstrate that a process is in place, the agency has no idea how the required information will impact its CON review. Without definitions and standards, the agency will have no way of comparing one applicant's information with another's. Without specificity and more guidance the rules fail to apprise the applicant of what is required and will provide no meaningful information to the agency in its CON review function. Miscellaneous Provisions The Non-Physician Director. The proposed definition of "Hospital Inpatient General Psychiatric Services" in Rule 10-5.011(1) (o)2.1. includes services provided under the direction of a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist In drafting this definition, agency staff relied on advice from experts at their workshops and on advice from the agency's own Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Program Office, to the effect that professionals, other than physicians, are qualified to direct the units. Interpretation and Application. It is not the intention of HRS that its rules be interpreted to override good medical practice or the sound judgement of treating physicians. Thus, the rules would not prohibit stabilization of a patient who is presented to the emergency room of a hospital without a CON for substance abuse or psychiatric services. Stabilized Alzheimers patients may be housed in nursing homes. Nor do the rules prohibit or subject to sanctions the occasional admission of a psychiatric or substance abuse patient to a non-substance abuse or psychiatric bed so long as this occurs infrequently in a hospital without psychiatric or substance abuse programs. "Scatter" beds are not eliminated. Those beds would continue to be licensed as acute-care beds, as they would not be considered part of an organized program, with staff and protocols, to provide psychiatric or substance abuse services. Proposed rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.h.(v) provides that applicants for IRTPs for children and adolescents seeking licensing as a specialty hospital must provide documentation that the district's licensed non-hospital IRTPs do not meet the need for the proposed service. The department is not seeking specific utilization data in this regard, as such is not available. General information on the availability of alternatives to inpatient hospital services is obtainable from local health councils and mental health professionals in the community. Quarterly Reports. Proposed rule 10-5.011(1)(o)10. requires: Facilities providing licensed hospital inpatient general psychiatric services shall report to the department or its designee, within 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter, the number of hospital inpatient general psychiatric services admissions and patient days by age and primary diagnosis ICD-9 code. The Health Care Cost Containment Board (HCCCB) is already collecting similar quarterly data from providers. The reporting system is being updated and improved but in the meantime HRS is experiencing problems with the type and accuracy of the data it receives from HCCCB. One problem is that HCCCB collects its data with regard to all discharges in a psychiatric or substance abuse diagnostic category, whereas HRS is interested only in data from a psychiatric or substance abuse program. Until the system improves, HRS needs the information it seeks from the providers in order to plan and apply the need methodology. The agency intends to designate local health councils to collect the data and has already worked with them to set up a system. If reports provided to the HCCCB comply with the proposed requirement, HRS has no problem in receiving a duplicate of those reports. The Economic Impact Statement Pursuant to Section 120.54(2), F.S., HRS prepared an economic impact statement for the proposed rule. It was authored by Elfie Stamm, a Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor with HRS. Ms. Stamm has a Masters degree in psychology and has completed course work for a Ph.D. in psychology. She has been employed by HRS for 13 years, including the last ten years in the Office of Comprehensive Health Planning. She is responsible for developing CON rules, portions of the state health plan, and special health care studies. It was impossible for Ms. Stamm to determine how the rule could impact the public at large. The economic impact statement addresses generally the effect of abolishing the distinction between long and short term services and acknowledges that the rule will increase competition among short term service providers. The impact statement also addresses a positive impact on current long term providers.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts entered into by the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Humana of Florida, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Humana, Inc., is the owner of Women's Hospital in Tampa. Women's Hospital presently has 192 licensed beds, of which 96 are used for obstetrical patients and 96 are used for gynecological patients. It is dedicated to meeting the physical, psychological, educational, social and environmental needs of women and newborns and offers a total program of obstetrical, neonatal and gynecological care. Although not designated by the State as a Level III facility, Women's Hospital in Tampa has the personnel and equipment necessary to provide Level III care. It treats many high-risk obstetrical patients and their newborns, as well as premature infants. High-risk infants do not require transfer to another hospital with Level III capabilities. Every practicing obstetrical/gynecological physician in Tampa is on the staff of Women's Hospital. Petitioner submitted an application for a Certificate of Need to add a fifth floor to its existing facility and to increase its licensed obstetrical bed complement from 96 beds to 130 beds. Of the 34 additional obstetrical beds requested, 12 are to be allocated to an antepartum unit. These 12 beds would be organized as a separate self-contained unit to care for obstetrical patients experiencing or likely to experience a complicated pregnancy and/or delivery. The types of obstetrical patients who would utilize a separate antepartum unit would include diabetics, patients who experience difficulties with blood pressure, kidney disorders and conditions associated with the heart and thyroid. In many instances, the antepartum patient is ambulatory or quasi-ambulatory and is thus able to meet many of her own needs. As a result, the intensity of nursing care in an antepartum unit is lower than that which would be expected in a postpartum obstetrical unit, resulting in a cost-savings to the antepartum patient. The total proposed capital expenditure for the addition of a fifth floor and 34 obstetrical beds is approximately $2.8 million. While petitioner is licensed for 96 obstetrical beds, only 62 of those beds were in operation at the time of the final hearing in this proceeding. Based on the 62 beds in operation, the average obstetrical bed occupancy rate was 112 percent from September, 1982 through August, 1983. Due primarily to the temporary discontinuance of obstetrical services at St. Joseph's Hospital located across the street from petitioner, occupancy levels have reached 130 percent since January of 1983. Such occupancy levels create significant problems in terms of patient care and facility, physician and nursing efficiency. The difficulties associated with scheduling surgery and infection control are exacerbated with overcrowded conditions. Because newborns and postpartum mothers are more susceptible to infection, it is medically necessary to separate and segregate postpartum and gynecological patients. Petitioner had 4,600 deliveries last year and projects it will have 5,800 deliveries this year. If all 96 obstetrical beds were currently in operation, petitioner's occupancy levels would be approximately 70 percent. An indication of adequate utilization of obstetrical beds is an average annual occupancy level of 75 percent. Petitioner expects to reach the 75 percent occupancy level of its existing licensed 96 beds within the next year and a half to two years. Petitioner presently has no private obstetrical rooms at its facility. When a patient requires isolation from other patients, one of the beds in the semiprivate room is not available for use. Due to high occupancy levels, petitioner is unable to offer a private room to any of its obstetrical patients when it is not medically necessary to do so. Thus, even without the addition of 34 beds, petitioner desires to construct a fifth floor to allow it to reconfigure its units and convert a number of semiprivate rooms into private rooms by transferring existing licensed beds to the fifth floor. This would enhance the hospital's ability to utilize its bed complement in a more efficient manner. Even without additional beds, petitioner's Executive Director believes that by amortizing construction costs over a period of 20 to 25 years and reducing its operating margin, there would not be a significant impact upon patient charges as a result of the fifth floor addition. Should petitioner be granted a Certificate of Need allowing it to construct a fifth floor with no new beds, petitioner would be willing to accept conditions concerning the conversion of existing semiprivate rooms to private, such as capping over medical gas outlets, deactivating wall outlets and light fixtures for a second bed and furnishing the new rooms on the exclusive basis of a private room. The conversion of semiprivate rooms to private rooms could be a less costly alternative to the addition of new beds in some instances. To the extent that the addition of private beds provides a potentiality for greater utilization of existing services, additional patient revenues can be generated. It is not the policy if the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to grant approval for "shelled in" or "banking" space due to the potential competitive advantage it affords by allowing a future increase of beds without significant cost. Petitioner has the ability to adequately staff its proposed project with all necessary technical, nursing, and medical personnel, and will provide an acceptable level of patient care. Sufficient funds are available to construct and operate the project and the project has immediate and long-term financial feasibility. Its costs and methods for the proposed construction are reasonable, appropriate, and cost-efficient. The respondent HRS has promulgated Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code which establishes a uniform methodology for determining the number of acute care hospital beds needed five years into the future within the eleven HRS service districts throughout the State. The Rule addresses the need for general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical acute care services in hospitals and the Department will not normally approve applications for additional beds if the new beds would cause the number of beds in a particular district to exceed the number calculated to be needed under the Rule's methodology. Rule 10-5.11(23) calculates need through a series of formulas by considering the need for the various types of individual services and then adding these figures together to produce a figure indicating the total number of acute care beds which would be needed in a particular District within a five-year time frame. Then, after certain adjustments, all existing licensed and approved acute care beds are subtracted from the total bed need to determine the net bed need within the District. Subdistrict allocations by type of service are to be made by the individual Local Health Councils consistent with the District total acute care bed allocations, with certain adjustments permitted. As of the date of the hearing in this cause, the Sixth District's Local Health Council's plan for the allocation of beds on a service specific or subdistrict basis had not been adopted. The acute care bed need methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(23) takes into account the population for the service area projected five years into the future, the historic utilization rate for particular types of service, average lengths of stay, optimal occupancy rates for the various types of services, and, with regard to obstetrical bed projections, the fertility rate of women between the ages of 15 and 44. The Rule sets forth the manner in which the figures for these various components are to be derived. Utilizing the methodology for determining acute care bed need as set forth in the Rule, District VI presently has 950 acute care beds in excess of the beds projected to be needed in the year 1988. By applying the subportion of the Rule relating to obstetrical beds to Hillsborough County, there are presently 47 obstetrical beds in excess of the number needed for 1988. While the petitioner agrees with the basic generic form of the methodology contained in Rule 10-5.11(23), petitioner would substitute different data than that mandated under the Rule and perform certain adjustments. For example, petitioner would adjust the numbers used in the formula by increasing the statewide fertility rate for the years 1979-81 by 5 percent, by factoring in a number of 2 percent to 3 percent to represent the in-migration of obstetrical patients, by increasing the statewide average length of stay from 3.5 to 3.8 days so as to reflect the actual experience at petitioner's facility, by making an adjustment for hospital stays by an obstetrical patient which do not result in a delivery and by making a downward adjustment for those births which do not occur in a hospital setting. Petitioner would also subtract from the number of existing and/or approved beds the 15 obstetrical beds at St. Joseph's Hospital which were taken out of service on an interim basis as of December 31, 1982, pending the development of a comprehensive plan for the delivery of obstetrical services on a decentralized basis. The parties to this proceeding have stipulated that St. Joseph's Hospital contemplates that its future obstetrical service will be centered around birthing rooms, rather than actual labor, delivery and recovery rooms, and that it is reasonable to expect that, once the service is resumed, approximately 360 deliveries will occur with this number increasing over time. After making all these adjustments and utilizing different data in the formula for determining need, petitioner concludes there is a 1988 need in District VI for 26 or 27 additional obstetrical beds. Petitioner's analysis of bed need based both on an institution-specific analysis and a trend analysis resulted in a finding of from 32 to 36 additional beds needed at petitioner's facility by the year 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need in its entirety be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 2nd day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. French, Jr., Esquire & James C. Hauser, Esquire Messer, Rhodes & Vickers P.O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Claire D. Dryfuss Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Bldg. 1, Room 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the certificate of need application to convert 30 acute care beds to 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General Medical Center meets the statutory and rule criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The North Broward Hospital District (NBHD) is a special taxing district established by the Florida Legislature in 1951 to provide health care services to residents of the northern two-thirds of Broward County. NBHD owns and operates four acute care hospitals: Coral Springs Medical Center, North Broward Medical Center, Imperial Point Medical Center (Imperial Point), and Broward General Medical Center (Broward General). NBHD also owns and/or operates primary care clinics, school clinics, urgent care centers, and a home health agency. FMC Hospital, Ltd., d/b/a Florida Medical Center (FMC) is a 459-bed hospital with 74 inpatient psychiatric beds, 51 for adults separated into a 25-bed adult unit and a 26-bed geriatric psychiatric unit, and 23 child/adolescent psychiatric beds. FMC is a public Baker Act receiving facility for children and adolescents and operates a mental health crisis stabilization unit (CSU) for children and adolescents. FMC also operates separately located facilities which include a partial hospitalization program, an adult day treatment program, and a community mental health center. At Florida Medical Center South, FMC operates another day treatment program and partial hospitalization program. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the state agency which administers the certificate of need (CON) program for health care services and facilities in Florida. The NBHD applied for CON Number 8425 to convert 30 acute care beds to 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General. Broward General operates approximately 550 of its total 744 licensed beds. It is a state Level II adult and pediatric trauma center and the tertiary referral center for the NBHD, offering Level II and III neonatal intensive care, pediatric intensive care, cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services. Broward General has 68 adult psychiatric beds and is a public Baker Act receiving facility for adults. Public Baker Act receiving facilities have state contracts and receive state funds to hold involuntarily committed mental patients, regardless of their ability to pay, for psychiatric evaluation and short-term treatment. See Subsections 394.455(25) and (26), Florida Statutes. Although they serve different age groups, both FMC and Broward General are, by virtue of contracts with the state, public Baker Act facilities. When a Baker Act patient who is an indigent child or adolescent arrives at Broward General, the patient is transferred to FMC. FMC also typically transfers indigent Baker Act adults to Broward General. At Broward General, psychiatric patients are screened in a separate section of the emergency room by a staff which has significant experience with indigent mental health patients. If hospitalization is appropriate, depending on the patient's physical and mental condition, inpatient psychiatric services are provided in either a 38-bed unit on the sixth floor or a 30- bed unit on the fourth floor of Broward General. In July 1995, Broward General also started operating a 20-bed mental health CSU located on Northwest 19th Street in Fort Lauderdale. Prior to 1995, the County operated the 19th Street CSU and 60 CSU beds on the grounds of the South Florida State Hospital (SFSH), a state mental hospital. Following an investigation of mental health services in the County, a grand jury recommended closing the 60 CSU beds at SFSH because of "deplorable conditions." In addition, the grand jury recommended that the County transfer CSU operations to the NBHD and the South Broward Hospital District (SBHD). As a result, the SBHD assumed the responsibility for up to 20 CSU inpatients a day within its existing 100 adult psychiatric beds at Memorial Regional Hospital. The NBHD assumed the responsibility for up to 40 CSU inpatients a day, including 20 at the 19th Street location. The additional 20 were to be redirected to either the 68 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General or the 47 adult psychiatric beds at Imperial Point. CSU services for adult Medicaid and indigent patients in the NBHD service area were transferred pursuant to contracts between the NBHD and Broward County, and the NBHD and the State of Florida, Department of Children and Family Services (formerly, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). Based on the agreements, the County leases the 19th Street building in which Broward General operates the CSU. The County also pays a flat rate of $1.6 million a year in monthly installments for the salaries of the staff which was transferred from the County mental health division to the NBHD. The County's contract with the NBHD lasts for five years, from December 1995 to September 2000. Either party may terminate the contract, without cause, upon 30 days notice. The State contract, unlike that of Broward County, does not provide a flat rate, but sets a per diem reimbursement rate of approximately $260 per patient per day offset by projected Medicaid revenues. The State contract is renewable annually, but last expired on June 30, 1997. The contract was being re-negotiated at the time of the hearing in November 1997. Based on actual experience with declining average lengths of stay for psychiatric inpatients, the contract was being re-negotiated to fund an average of 30, not a maximum of 40 patients a day. If CON 8425 is approved, NBHD intends to use the additional 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General to meet the requirements of the State and County contracts, while closing the 19th Street CSU and consolidating mental health screening and stabilization services at Broward General. NBHD proposes to condition the CON on the provision of 70 percent charity and 30 percent Medicaid patient days in the 30 new beds. By comparison, the condition applicable to the existing 68 beds requires the provision of 3 percent charity and 25 percent Medicaid. When averaged for a total of 98 beds, the overall condition would be 23.5 percent charity and 26.5 percent Medicaid, or a total of 51 or 52 percent. The proposed project will require the renovation of 10,297 gross square feet on the fourth floor of Broward General at a cost of approximately $450,000. The space is currently an unused section of Broward General which contains 42 medical/surgical beds. Twelve beds will be relocated to other areas of the hospital. The renovated space will include seclusion, group therapy, and social rooms, as well as 15 semi- private rooms. Twelve of the rooms will not have separate bathing/showering facilities, and seven of those will also not have toilets within the patients' rooms. Need in Relation to State and District Health Plans - Subsection 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes The District 10 allocation factors include a requirement that a CON applicant demonstrate continuously high levels of utilization. The applicant is given the following evidentiary guidelines: patients are routinely waiting for admissions to inpatient units; the facility provides significant services to indigent and Medicaid individuals; the facility arranges transfer for patients to other appropriate facilities; and the facility provides other medical services, if needed. Broward General does not demonstrate continuously high utilization by having patients routinely waiting for admission. Broward General does meet the other criteria required by allocation factor one. The second District 10 allocation factor, like criterion (b) of the first, favors an applicant who commits to serving State funded and indigent patients. Broward General is a disproportionate share Medicaid provider with a history of providing, and commitment to continue providing, significant services to Medicaid and indigent patients. In fact, the NBHD provides over 50 percent of both indigent and Medicaid services in District 10. See also Subsection 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Allocation factor three for substance abuse facilities is inapplicable to Broward General which does not have substance abuse inpatient services. Allocation factor 4 for an applicant with a full continuum of acute medical services is met by Broward General. See also Rule 59C-1.040(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Broward General complies with allocation factor 5 by participating in data collection activities of the regional health planning council. The state health plan includes preferences for (1) converting excess acute care beds; (2) serving the most seriously mentally ill patients; (3) serving indigent and Baker Act patients; (4) proposing to establish a continuum of mental health care; (5) serving Medicaid-eligible patients; and (6) providing a disproportionate share of Medicaid and charity care. Broward General meets the six state health plan preferences. See also Rule 59C-1.040(4)(e)2., Florida Administrative Code, and Subsection 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Broward General does not meet the preference for acute care hospitals if fewer than .15 psychiatric beds per 1000 people in the District are located in acute care hospitals. The current ratio in the District is .19 beds per 1,000 people. Rule 59C-1.040(4)(3)3, Florida Administrative Code, also requires that 40 percent of the psychiatric beds needed in a district should be allocated to general hospitals. Currently, approximately 51 percent, 266 of 517 licensed District 10 adult inpatient psychiatric beds are located in general acute care hospitals. On balance, the NBHD and Broward General meet the factors and preferences of the health plans which support the approval of the CON application. See also Rule 59C- 1.040(4)(e)1. and Rule 59C-1.030, Florida Administrative Code. Numeric Need The parties stipulated that the published fixed need pool indicated no numeric need for additional adult inpatient psychiatric hospital beds. In fact, the numeric need calculation shows a need for 434 beds in District 10, which has 517 beds, or 83 more than the projected numeric need. In 1994- 1995, the District utilization rate was approximately 58 percent. The NBHD asserts that the need arises from "not normal" circumstances, specifically certain benefits from closing the 19th Street CSU, especially the provision of better consolidated care in hospital-based psychiatric beds, and the establishment of a County mental health court. The NBHD acknowledges that AHCA does not regulate CSU beds through the CON program and that CSU beds are not intended to be included in the calculation of numeric need for adult psychiatric beds. However, due to the substantial similarity of services provided, NBHD contends that CSU beds are de facto inpatient psychiatric beds which affect the need for CON- regulated psychiatric beds. Therefore, according to the NBHD, the elimination of beds at SFSH and at the 19th Street CSU require an increase in the supply of adult psychiatric beds. The NBHD also notes that approval of its CON application will increase the total number of adult psychiatric hospital beds in Broward County, but will not affect the total number of adult mental health beds when CSU and adult psychiatric beds are combined. After the CSU beds at SFSH closed, the total number of adult mental health beds in the County has, in fact, been reduced. NBHD projected a need to add 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General by combining the 1995 average daily census (ADC) of 48 patients with its assumption that it can add up to 10, increasing the ADC to 58 patients a day in the existing 68 beds. Based on its contractual obligation to care for up to 40 CSU inpatients a day, the NBHD projects a need for an additional 30 beds. The projection assumed that the level of utilization of adult inpatient psychiatric services at Broward General would remain relatively constant. With 40 occupied beds added to the 48 ADC, NBHD predicted an ADC of 88 in the new total of 98 beds, or 90 percent occupancy. The assumption that the ADC would remain fairly constant is generally supported by the actual experience with ADCs of 48.1, 51.5, and 45.8 patients, respectively, in 1995, 1996, and the first seven months of 1997. NBHD's second assumption, that an ADC of 40 CSU patients will be added is not supported by the actual experience. Based on the terms of the State and County contracts, up to 20 CSU patients have already been absorbed into the existing beds at the Imperial Point or Broward General, which is one explanation for the temporary increase in ADC in 1996, while up to 20 more may receive services at the 19th Street location. In 1996 and 1997, the ADC in the 19th Street CSU beds was 15.3 and 14.2, respectively, with monthly ranges in 1997 from a high of 17 in April to a low of 12 in June. The relatively constant annual ADCs in psychiatric and CSU beds are a reflection of increasing admissions but declining average lengths of stay for psychiatric services. The NBHD also projects that it will receive referrals from the Broward County Mental Health Court, established in June 1997. The Court is intended to divert mentally ill defendants with minor criminal charges from the criminal justice system to the mental health system. Actual experience for only three months of operations showed 7 or 8 admissions a month with widely varying average lengths of stay, from 6 to 95 days. The effect of court referrals on the ADC at Broward General was statistically insignificant into the fall of 1997. Newspaper reports of the number of inmates with serious mental illnesses do not provide a reliable basis for projecting the effect of the mental health court on psychiatric admissions to Broward General, since it is not equipped to handle violent felons. One of Broward General's experts also compared national hospital discharge data to that of Broward County. The results indicate a lower use rate in Broward County in 1995 and a higher one in 1996. That finding was consistent with the expert's finding of a growth in admissions and bed turnover rate which measures the demand for each bed. The expert also considered the prevalence of mental illness and hospitalization rates. The data reflecting expected increases in admissions, however, was not compared to available capacity in the County nor correlated with declining lengths of stay. The District X: Comprehensive Health Plan 1994 includes an estimate of the need for 10 CSU beds per 100,000 people, or a total of 133 CSU beds needed for the District. FMC argues that the calculation is incorrect because only the adult population should be included. Using only adults, FMC determined that 116 CSU beds are needed which, when added to 434 adult psychiatric beds needed in the February 1996 projection, gives a bed need for all mental health beds of 550. That total is less than the actual combined total number of 567 mental health beds, 517 adult psychiatric beds plus 50 CSU beds in 1995. Whatever population group is appropriate, the projection of the need for CSU beds is not reliable based on the evidence that, since the end of 1995, CSU services have been and, according to NBHD, should continue to be absorbed into hospital- based adult psychiatric units. For the same reason, the increase in adult psychiatric bed admissions from 1995 to 1996 does not establish a trend towards increasing psychiatric utilization, but is more likely attributable to the closing of CSU beds at SFSH. FMC's expert's comparison of data from three selected months in two successive years is also not sufficient to establish a downward trend in utilization at the 19th Street CSU, neither is the evidence of a decline in ADC by one patient in one year. Utilization is relatively static based on ADCs in existing Broward County adult psychiatric beds and in CSU beds. FMC established Broward General's potential to decrease average lengths of stay by developing alternative non-inpatient services as FMC has done and Broward General proposes to do. See Finding of Fact 37. Based on local health council reports, FMC's data reflects a rise in the ADC at Broward General to 52.7 in 1996, and a return to 46 in the first seven months of 1997. Using a 14.2 ADC for the 19th Street CSU, FMC projects that Broward General will reach an ADC of approximately 60 in the first year of operations if the CON is approved, not 88 as projected. Broward General acknowledged its capacity to add 10 more patients to the ADC without stress on the system. Having already absorbed 20 of up to 40 CSU patients at Imperial Point and Broward General in 1996 and 1997 resulting in an ADC of 48, and given the capacity to absorb 10 more, the NBHD has demonstrated a need to accommodate an ADC of 10 more adult psychiatric patients at Broward General, or a total ADC of 68 patients. The need to add capacity to accommodate an additional 10 patient ADC was not shown to equate to a need for 30 additional beds, which would result in an ADC of 68 patients in 98 beds, or 69 or 70 percent occupancy. Special Circumstances - Rule 59C-1.040(4)(d) The psychiatric bed rule provides for approval of additional beds in the absence of fixed numeric need. The "special circumstance" provision applies to a facility with an existing unit with 85 percent or greater occupancy. During the applicable period, the occupancy at Broward General was 74.15 percent. However, occupancy rates have exceeded 95 percent in the CSU beds on 19th Street. If up to 20 patients on 19th Street are added to the 48 ADC at Broward General, the result is that the existing 68 beds will be full. A full unit is operationally not efficient or desirable and allows no response to fluctuations in demand. Therefore, the state has established a desirable standard of 75 percent occupancy for psychiatric units, a range which supports the addition of 10 to 15 psychiatric beds at Broward General. Available Alternatives - Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59C-1.040(4)(e)4., Florida Administrative Code The psychiatric bed rule provides that additional beds will "not normally" be added if the district occupancy rate is below 75 percent. For the twelve months preceding the application filing, the occupancy rate in 517 adult psychiatric beds in District 10 was approximately 58 percent. FMC's expert noted that each day an average of 200 adult psychiatric beds were available in District 10. Broward General argues that the occupancy rate is misleading. Five of the nine facilities with psychiatric beds are freestanding, private facilities, which are ineligible for Medicaid participation. Historically, the freestanding hospitals have also provided little charity care. One facility, University Pavilion, is full. Of the four acute care hospitals with adult psychiatric beds, Memorial Hospital in the SBHD, is not available to patients in the NBHD service area. Imperial Point, the only other NBHD facility with adult psychiatric beds, is not available based on its occupancy rate for the first seven months of 1997 of approximately 81 percent, which left an average of 9 available beds in a relatively small 47-bed unit. That leaves only Broward General and FMC to care for Medicaid and indigent adult psychiatric patients. FMC is the only possible alternative provider of services, but Broward General was recommended by the grand jury and was the only contract applicant. The occupancy rate in FMC's 51 adult beds was approximately 80 percent in 1995, 73 percent in 1996, and 77 percent for the first seven months in 1997. FMC has reduced average lengths of stay by having patients "step down" to partial hospitalization, day treatment and other outpatient services of varying intensities. The same decline in average lengths of stay is reasonably expected when Broward General implements these alternatives. Adult psychiatric services are also accessible in District 10 applying the psychiatric bed rule access standard. That is, ninety percent of the population of District 10 has access to the service within a maximum driving time of forty- five minutes. The CSU license cannot be transferred to Broward General. Broward County holds the license for CSU beds which, by rule, must be located on the first floor of a building. Although Broward General may not legally hold the CSU license and provide CSU services on the fourth floor of the hospital, there is no apparent legal impediment to providing CSU services in psychiatric beds. Quality of Care - Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes and Rule 1.040(7), Florida Administrative Code Broward General is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. The parties stipulated that Broward General has a history of providing quality care. Broward General provides the services required by Rule 59C-1.040(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Services Not Accessible in Adjoining Areas; Research and Educational Facilities; Needs of HMOs; Services Provided to Individuals Beyond the District; Subsections 408.035(1)(f),(g),(j), and (k), Florida Statutes Broward General does not propose to provide services which are inaccessible in adjoining areas nor will it provide services to non-residents of the district. Broward General is not one of the six statutory teaching hospitals nor a health maintenance organization (HMO). Therefore, those criteria are of no value in determining whether this application should be approved. Economics and Improvements in Service from Joint Operation - Subsection 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes The consolidation of the psychiatric services at Broward General is reasonably expected to result in economies and improvements in the provision of coordinated services to the mentally ill indigent and Medicaid population. Broward General will eliminate the cost of meal deliveries and the transfer of medically ill patients, but that potential cost-saving was not quantified by Broward General. Staff and Other Resources - Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes The parties stipulated that NBHD has available the necessary resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds to implement the project. Financially Feasibility - Subsection 408.035(1)(h) and (i), Florida Statutes The parties stipulated that the proposed project is financially feasible in the immediate term. The estimated total project cost is $451,791, but NBHD has $500,000 in funds for capital improvements available from the County and $700,000 from the Florida Legislature. As stipulated by the parties, NBHD has sufficient cash on hand to fund the project. Regardless of the census, the County's contractual obligation to the NBHD remains fixed at $1.6 million. The State contract requires the prospective payment of costs offset by expected Medicaid dollars. If the number of Medicaid eligible patients decreases, then state funding increases proportionately. The state assumed that 20 percent of the patients would qualify for Medicaid, therefore it reimburses the per diem cost of care for 80 percent of the patients. One audit indicated that 30 percent of the patients qualified for Medicaid, so that State payments for that year were higher than needed. The State contract apparently makes no provision to recover excess payments. The application projects a net profit of $740,789 for the first year of operations, and a net profit of $664,489 for the second year. If the State contract with NBHD is renewed to contemplate an average of 30 patients per day as opposed to up to 40 patients per day, then annual revenue could be reduced up to $400,000. Projected net profit will, nevertheless, exceed expenses when variable expenses are reduced correspondingly. If 20 state funded patients are already in psychiatric beds, and 20 more could be transferred from 19th Street, the result is an ADC of 68. Based on the funding arrangements, there is no evidence that the operation of a total of 98 beds could not be profitable, even with an ADC of 68, although it would be wasteful to have 30 extra beds. Impact on Competition, Quality Assurance and Cost-Effectiveness - Subsection 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes With a maximum of 68 inpatients or more realistically, under the expected terms of a renegotiated State contract, 58 to 60 inpatients in 98 beds, Broward General will reasonably attempt to expand the demand for its inpatient psychiatric services. Within the NBHD's legal service area, one-third of adult psychiatric patients not admitted to Broward General are admitted to FMC. Assuming a proportionate impact on competitors, FMC's expert projected that one-third of approximately 30 unfilled beds at Broward General will be filled by patients who would otherwise have gone to FMC. The projection of a loss of 9 patients from the ADC of FMC is reasonably based on an analysis showing comparable patient severity in the most prevalent diagnostic category. Given the blended payor commitment of approximately 51 or 52 percent total for Medicaid and charity in 98 beds, Broward General will be able to take patients from every payor category accepted at FMC. The loss of 9 patients from its ADC can reduce revenues by $568,967 at FMC. The impact analysis is reasonably based on lost patient days since most payers use a per diem basis for compensating FMC. For example, although Medicare reimbursement is usually based on diagnosis regardless of length of stay, it is cost-based for the geriatric psychiatric unit. Net profit at FMC, for the year 1996-1997, was expected to be approximately $4.5 million. FMC will also experience increased costs in transporting indigent patients from FMC to Broward General for admission and treatment. Because of the additional distance, the cost to transfer indigent patients is $20 more per patient from FMC to Broward General than it is from FMC to the 19th Street CSU. FMC typically stabilizes indigent adult psychiatric inpatients, then transfers them to either the 19th Street CSU or Broward General. From March through September of 1997, FMC transported approximately 256 indigent patients from FMC to the 19th Street CSU. In terms of quality assurance, the consolidation of psychiatric services at Broward General will allow all patients better access to the full range of medical services available at Broward General. The NBHD's operation of the 19th Street CSU is profitable. Approval of the CON application should reasonably eliminate all costs associated with operation of the 19th Street facility, and shift more revenues from the State and County contracts to Broward General. Some savings are reasonably expected from not having meal deliveries to 19th Street or patient transfers for medical care. The NBHD did not quantify any expected savings. Costs and Methods of Construction - Subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes Broward General will relocate 12 of 42 medical/surgical beds and convert 30 medical/surgical beds to 30 adult psychiatric beds on one wing of the fourth floor, which is currently unused. Fifteen semi-private medical/surgical patient rooms will be converted into semi-private adult psychiatric rooms. Existing wards will be converted to two social rooms, one noisy and one quiet. With the removal of the walls of some offices, the architect designed a group therapy room. An existing semi-private room will be used as a seclusion room. Of the fifteen semi-private rooms, twelve will not have bathing or showering facilities and seven will not have toilets within the patients' rooms. At the time the hospital was constructed, the state required only a lavatory/sink in each patient room. AHCA's architect agreed to allow Broward General to plan to use central bathing and toilet facilities to avoid additional costs and diminished patient room sizes. Because the plan intentionally avoids construction in the toilets, except to enlarge one to include a shower, there is no requirement to upgrade to Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Therefore, the $23,280 construction cost contingency for code compliance is adequate. Although the projected construction costs are reasonable and the applicable architectural code requirements are met, the design is not the most desirable in terms of current standards. Patient privacy is compromised by the lack of toilets for each patient room. Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Promote a Continuum of Care in a Multi-level System - Subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes Broward General is a tertiary acute care facility which provides a broad continuum of care. Because it already operates the CSU and provides CSU services in adult psychiatric beds, the proposal to relocate patients maintains but does not further promote that continuum of care. Broward General's plan to establish more alternatives to inpatient psychiatric care does promote and enhance its continuum of care. Capital Expenditures for New Inpatient Services - Subsection 408.035(2), Florida Statutes Broward General is not proposing to establish a new health service for inpatients, rather it is seeking to relocate an existing service without new construction. The criteria in this Subsection are inapplicable. Factual Conclusions Broward General did not establish a "not normal" circumstance based on the grand jury's findings and recommendations. The grand jury did not recommend closing 19th Street facility. Broward General did generally establish not normal circumstances based on the desirability of consolidating mental health services at Broward General to provide a single point of entry and to improve the quality of care for the 19th Street facility patients. Broward General failed to establish the need to add 30 beds to accomplish the objective of closing the 19th Street facility. Although the existing beds at Broward General may reasonably be expected to be full as a result of the transfer of 19th Street patients, the addition of 30 beds without sufficient demand results in an occupancy rate of 69 or 70 percent, from an ADC of 68 patients in 98 beds. Broward General has requested approximately twice as many beds as it demonstrated it needs. Broward General's CON application on balance satisfies the local and state health plan preferences. In general, FMC is the only alternative facility in terms of available beds, but is not the tax-supported public facility which the grand jury favored to coordinate mental health services. Broward General meets the statutory criteria for quality of care, improvements from joint operations, financial feasibility, quality assurance, cost-effectiveness, and services to Medicaid and indigent patients. The proposal is not the most desirable architecturally considering current standards. More importantly, Broward General did not demonstrate that it can achieve its projected occupancy without an adverse impact on FMC. The NBHD proposal will add too many beds to meet the targeted state occupancy levels in relatively a static market. Broward General's application does not include a partial request for fewer additional beds which would have allowed the closing of 19th Street, while maintaining some empty beds for demand fluctuations and avoiding an adverse impact on FMC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration deny the application of the North Broward Hospital District for Certificate of Need Number 8425 to convert 30 medical/surgical beds to 30 adult psychiatric beds at Broward General Medical Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Paul Vazquez, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Underwood, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 David C. Ashburn, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 830 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
