Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner and remaining intervenor are corporations engaged in the business of constructing and operating nursing homes in Florida. Each has pending before MRS applications for Certificates of Need for new nursing homes in Florida, and the challenged Rule 10-5.11(21) , Florida Administrative Code, is applicable to these applications. The respondent MRS has applied and relied upon the challenged rule to deny certificates of need to these parties. Prior to the adoption of Rule 10-5.11(21) , there was no uniform statewide methodology for the determination of the need for additional community nursing home beds. The different health planning districts utilized various methodologies to determine the nursing home bed need in their communities. The majority of the districts utilized a formula of 27 beds per thousand population 65 years of age and older. Application of the formula was adjusted or deviated from in some districts to account for other considerations, such as occupancy levels of existing facilities, the waiting lists for existing facilities, travel times and the exclusion of sheltered beds. In order to develop a uniform statewide methodology for determining the need for additional nursing home beds, the Statewide Health Coordinating Council (SHCC) established a work group to review the various existing methodologies and recommend a uniform methodology. This work group met over a period of some six months. Its recommendation, accepted by the SHCC, was the adoption of a statewide nursing home bed ratio of 27 beds per thousand population age 65 and over, with an area specific allocation based upon the poverty level in the service area compared to the statewide poverty level. In the July 23, 1982 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly, HRS gave notice of its intent to adopt Rule 10-5.11(21) relating to community nursing home beds. The need methodology originally proposed was that recommended by the work group and SHCC--the 27/1000 ratio, adjusted by the poverty factor, with a population projected three years into the future. A public hearing on the proposed rule was held on August 10, 1982, and the record of the rule-adoption proceedings was held open until September 10, 1982, for the filing of any additional comments on the proposed rule. written comments were received by ERS after the public hearing. As a result of and in response to comments received regarding the originally proposed rule, HRS changed the methodology to he utilized for determining nursing home bed need by adding further steps to the application of the formula. Notice of the changes was published in the October 22, 1982 Florida Administrative weekly, and the rule became effective on November 15, 1982. No further public hearings were held on the challenged rule. The challenged existing rule states that applications for community nursing home beds will be considered in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The rule then sets forth a formula methodology for determining nursing home bed need in the various service districts and provides that applications for new or additional nursing home beds "will not normally [be] approve[d]" if approval would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated by the rule's methodology. Basically, the methodology prescribed in the challenged rule contains three specific steps or screens which must be met before additional beds may be approved. The three- step process begins with the 27/1000 bed need ratio, adjusted by the poverty indicator, as originally proposed. This results in a theoretical bed need. The number of existing and approved beds in the subdistrict is then subtracted from the number obtained by using the ratio to determine whether additional beds are needed in the district and the subdistrict. The subdistrict is then classified into one of four categories, depending on whether there is a need or lack of need in the district and subdistrict under analysis. Each of the four categories is assigned a current and prospective utilization or occupancy level ranging from 80 to 95 percent. The occupancy levels of existing nursing home facilities are utilized to reflect existing community behavior patterns which could not be captured by a general or theoretical need estimator alone. The prospective utilization screen, the last step in the methodology, purports to specify how many beds will be made available when a demand for beds exists. In essence, the rule defines an area-specific generalized or theoretical need for nursing home beds based upon the degree of poverty in an "area, and then looks to community behavior through actual utilization of beds to determine how and when additional beds should he added. The rule is designed to pace the issuance of new beds by examining the actual utilization of nursing home facilities in operation. Bed availability is paced in response to actual demand as evidenced by community behavior toward existing and new nursing home facilities. The formula methodology contained in the challenged rule does not take into consideration the use of nursing home beds by individuals under the age of 65. The rule assigns no weighted factor for the various age groups 65 and over. It is estimated that some 13 percent of all patients in nursing homes are under The vast majority of those persons presently in nursing homes are 75 and over, and the segment of the elderly population over age 75 is growing much more rapidly than that segment between 65 and 74. Many states utilize a higher nursing home bed per elderly population ratio than 27 per thousand. However, the types of beds included in those higher numbers were not established. It is the policy and practice in Florida to recognize and encourage alternative forms of long-term care for the elderly, such as sheltered nursing home beds within a life care facility and adult congregate living facility beds. These tvpes of beds are not included in the 27 figure set forth in the challenged rule. The use of the 27 bed standard is based upon a trend line analysis of historical nursing home utilization, and is intended to be a cap on the number of approvable beds. Use of the poverty index factor to adjust theoretical need achieved by a simple bed to population ratio is based upon an actual positive correlation in Florida between the degree of ooverty in an area and the supply of existing nursing home beds in that area. The poverty indicator takes into account only those elderly persons defined according to the latest available United States census. No separate consideration is given to those persons who may be "medically indigent" or "near Poor," though not falling into the poverty category as defined by the United States Census Bureau. It often takes between two and three years to place a Certificate of Need approved nursing home into operation. Some 30 of all licensed and approved nursing homes in Florida are not presently in operation. In some counties, such as Dade and Monroe, only 30 percent to 35 percent of the beds approved are in a position to become operational. The effect of the challenged rule is to approve additional beds only after those beds previously approved become operational and occupied. Because the prospective utilization screen counts beds approved but not yet operational and assumes a zero patient census for these beds, application of this screen may result in a determination that no additional beds should be approved regardless of the lack of existing available nursing home facilities. This is the result of the rule's current application in Dade County. One of the purposes of the challenged methodology is to measure the actual demand for new nursing home beds in a cautious manner while allowing the market to respond to the beds approved prior to the rule. The methodology prevents the approval of all potentially needed beds in one hatching cycle by waiting to examine how utilization experience in the community may modify need. The rule's methodology does not provide a mechanism for making accurate long-range predictions as to the future need for nursing home beds in any specific area. As occupancy levels change, there will he great fluctuations in the resulting need for beds under the prescribed formula. In order to "run" the formula, it is necessary to have information concerning current and projected population figures, the poverty factor, occupancy levels of existing facilities and the actual number of existing and approved nursing home beds in the district and subdistrict. The newly enacted Medicare hospital reimbursement system based upon diagnostic related groupings (DRGs) is likely to have a tremendous impact upon the utilization of nursing home beds and other long-term care facilities. With reimbursement levels based upon the nature of the illness as opposed to the length of stay, hospitals will have an incentive to release patients earlier. An economic impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the challenged rule. The statement contains an estimate of the respondent's printing and distribution costs involved in implementing the rule. The EIS relates that the rule implements a statewide standard of 27 community nursing home beds per 1,000 population 65 years of age and older, and concludes that this standard does not exceed the current bed need standard applied in Certificate of Need decisions. It was noted that this rule establishes a cap on nursing home growth and thereby restricts public expenditures. A comparison of Medicaid expenditures if a higher bed to population ratio were adopted was provided. With regard to the effect of the rule on competition, the EIS relates that the rule will restrain the development of costly excess capacity and restrain competition among nursing home providers with the intent of containing public expenditures. Increased competition was noted among providers who serve patients whose care is funded with private resources. Before preparing the EIS, the author reviewed the suggested methodology of the State Health Plan and analyzed the various methodologies previously utilized in the various health planning districts throughout the State. She determined that the challenged rule would not basically change the existing methodologies applied throughout the State, and therefore concluded there would he no economic impact beyond the costs associated with the promulgation of a rule. According to calculations performed by the author of the EIS subsequent to the adoption of the challenged rule, the statewide bed to population ratio in Florida as of June, 1983, was 27.3. This result is derived by adding together the existing licensed beds, the Certificate of Need approved beds and the beds available on a statewide basis as a result of the rule's application, and dividing that number by the 1983 population age 65 and over.
The Issue Whether HRS should grant Heartland's application for a certificate of need to build a 120-bed nursing home in Dade County?
Findings Of Fact HRS' Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor in the Office of Community Medical Facilities, Ms. Elizabeth Dudek, testified that HRS proposes to deny Heartland's application for certificate of need based on "only those criteria that had to do with need." (T.160) The parties agree that no other criteria are at issue. No Bed Need HRS's Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, specifies a formula to "determine if there is a projected need for new or additional community nursing home beds three years into the future." Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The rule formula begins with two population cohorts, 65 to 74 and 75 and older, "projected . . . three years into the future," Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, and generates a "final subdistrict allocation." From this "final subdistrict allocation," all existing nursing home beds and 90 per cent of approved nursing home beds not yet in service are subtracted, in order to determine net bed need for the subdistrict. For 1987, Dade County needs no new nursing home beds; there will be a surplus of 1,720 nursing home beds in Dade County in 1987. (T.136) After stipulating to a need for an additional 240 beds in 1988, HRS granted two certificates of need authorizing a total of 240 additional nursing home beds. Petitioner's Exhibits 15- 18. The evidence does not establish a need for more than 240 nursing home beds in Dade County in 1988, see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 19. HRS released a "semiannual nursing home census and bed need allocation report" on December 3, 1985, in which it used the rule formula to generate an "allocated beds" figure of 7767 for Dade County for January 1989 for use in the January 1986 review cycle. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. The report identified 5846 licensed beds and 1930 approved beds, and asserted a need for 184 "net beds." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. But, based on the most current projections available at the time of hearing, there will be a surplus of 1,536 nursing home beds in Dade County in 1989. (T.148) No Poverty Adjustment The same numbers for existing and approved nursing home beds were used, in calculating the 1987, 1988, and 1989 projections. Before these numbers were used to reduce the nursing home bed allocation for Dade County, and so produce net bed need figures, they were used to rule out the need for a poverty adjustment. If there are less than 27 existing or approved nursing home beds per 1,000 persons over 65 in the district and if the "district poverty rate" exceeds the "state poverty rate," according to the most recent census, the rule prescribes a different methodology, called a poverty adjustment, for determining a final subdistrict allocation. The "poverty adjustment" methodology depends on the size of present, not future, elderly populations. Dade and Monroe Counties comprise the pertinent HRS district. The current population of the district over age 65 is 302,008 and there are 6,271 licensed nursing home beds in the district, all in service as far as the evidence shows. An additional 2,110 nursing home beds approved for the district are not yet in service. The bed need projections for 1987, 1988 and 1989 do not reflect a poverty adjustment, since the number of nursing home beds already existing or approved in Dade and Monroe Counties, exceeds 27 per 1,000 persons over 65 living in the two counties. Even though the district poverty rate exceeds the average poverty rate statewide, the poverty adjustment does not come into play. If the number of approved nursing home beds were reduced by 240, however, the district's ratio of beds to persons over 65 would fall below 27. Petitioner's Exhibit 29 (corrected). In fact, a reduction in approved beds of 225 would bring the number of approved or existing beds below 27 per 1,000 persons 65 or over. (2,11O-225<(27x302.005)-6271). A diminution of less than 225 beds would reduce the surplus, but would not render the poverty adjustment applicable or otherwise result in a need for any additional beds in 1987, 1985 or 1989. But, if the number of approved nursing home beds were reduced by at least 225, the poverty adjustment would apply. Any reduction in approved beds means fewer approved beds to be multiplied by .9 and subtracted from the final subdistrict allocation. Because only 90 per cent of approved beds not yet in existence are subtracted, a diminution in approved beds of 225 would result in a net bed need greater than 225, a need well in excess of the 120 beds which Heartland seeks in this proceeding. Approved Beds Questioned The number of approved nursing home beds (not yet in service) used for all of these calculations includes 150 beds authorized by certificate of need No. 3426 issued to St. Francis Health Services, Inc. (St. Francis), 90 beds authorized by certificate of need No. 3427 issued to Hialeah Convalescent Centers, Inc. (Hialeah), 150 beds authorized by certificate of need No. 2555 issued to Catholic Community Services, Inc. (Catholic), see Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20, and 50 beds authorized by certificate of need No 2553 issued to U.S. Care Corporation for the Anna E. Anderson Health Center (Anderson). Petitioner's Exhibit 12. HRS issued the latter two certificates of need despite rule calculations showing no numerical need, because Anderson and Catholic proposed facilities for underserved segments of the Dade County population, including residents of Liberty City. Prior Policy Misapplied In the next batch after the one in which Heartland applied for certificate of need No. 3289, St. Francis and Hialeah applied for nursing home certificates of need in Dade County. When Heartland filed its original application for certificate of need, HRS adhered, although imperfectly, to a policy sometimes called "first in time, first in right." A witness described the policy: [T]he Department would give priority consideration to litigants who had filed the earliest application [i]f need was identified . . . [and the earliest applicant] met the applicable criteria. . . . [T]here was [no] consideration given to the planning horizon that the applicant applied for . . . (T.101) Under this policy, which was ostensibly in effect at HRS at all pertinent times through December 26, 1985, (T.l02), applicants who filed in earlier batches had priority over applicants who filed in later batches, and HRS looked to a receding three year horizon; if HRS identified sufficient need "three years into the future," Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, at any time while an application remained pending, HRS granted the certificate of need, if no other applicant had priority. Now, however, in order to "implement . . . what was seen as being the provisions of Gulf Court," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, p. 15, HRS staff considers bed need for each review cycle or "batch" at a single, constant, temporal point, viz., three years later than the deadline for filing nursing home certificate of need applications in that batch. A rule along these lines was proposed, but HRS has now withdrawn the proposed rule, in the face of multiple challenges to the rule. See, e.g., Forum Group, Inc., et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, No. 56-1677R. (DOAH, July 10, 1986) Initially, HRS proposed to deny St. Francis and Hialeah's applications for certificates of need, just as it proposed to deny Heartland's earlier application. Like Heartland before them, St. Francis and Hialeah each filed petitions for formal administrative proceedings, which were transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings, Hialeah Convalescent Centers, Inc. vs. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, No. 85-0556 and St. Francis Hospital, Inc., et al. vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, No. 85-0574, where the formal proceedings were consolidated. After HRS, St. Francis and Hialeah stipulated that 240 additional nursing home beds were needed in Dade County, the Hearing Officer entered an order in the consolidated proceeding, Cases Nos. 85-0556 and 85-0574, on October 21, 1985, remanding the consolidated proceeding to HRS. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 15 through 18. Even though St. Francis and Hialeah applied in a batching cycle subsequent to the one in which Heartland filed, and even though HRS did not issue a certificate of need to Heartland, HRS issued a 150-bed certificate of need to St. Francis on November 14, 1985, No. 3426, and a 90-bed certificate of need to Hialeah on December 9, 1985, No. 3427, apparently in the mistaken belief that St. Francis and Hialeah had applied for certificates of need before the cycle in which Heartland filed its application. HRS took no action on HCR's petition to intervene and motion to stay dated November 27, 1985. Subsequent Filings In 1985 Heartland filed a second application for a certificate of need for nursing home beds in Dade County, No. 4215, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 25, in a batch subsequent to the one in which Hialeah and St. Francis filed. Heartland filed separate petitions for formal administrative proceeding addressed to the certificates of need issued to Hialeah and St. Francis, petitions which are dated March 17, 1986. The petition in which Heartland challenged issuance of the certificate of need to Hialeah, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, occasioned an order styled Notice and Order entered by HRS on April 14, 1986. In this "Notice and Order" HRS denied Heartland's request for comparative review of the present application with Hialeah's application for certificate of need, citing Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 453 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (reh. den. 1986), for the proposition that the "first in line policy was repudiated." In the same "Notice and Order," however, HRS ruled that Heartland had a right too comparative review with Hialeah as regards Heartland's later application "if, as alleged by HCR (Heartland) the beds were awarded in Con 3427 from the fixed pool addressed by HCR in CON 4215." Healthcare and Retirement Corp. of America d/b/a Heartland of Dade, vs. Health and Rehabilitative Services and Hialeah Convalescent Centers, Inc., No. 86-1354. An order to the same effect was entered on Heartland's petition challenging issuance of certificate of need No. 3426 to St. Francis. Health Care and Retirement Corp. of America d/b/a Heartland of Dade vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and St. Francis' Health Services, Inc., et al No. 86- 1702 (HRS, May 9, 1986).
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS deny Heartland's application for certificate of need, No. 3289, without prejudice to comparative consideration of the same together with St. Francis' and Hialeah's applications, Nos. 3426 and 3427, in the event comparative review is ordered in other proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 43 and 44 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4 has been adopted, in substance, except for "numeric." Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6 and 7 have not been adopted. The application came in evidence, but petitioner was never authorized to file an updated application for a new batch at hearing; for one thing, petitioner did not show it had filed a letter of intent beforehand. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 8 is immaterial. All parties have proceeded on the assumption that Rule 10-5.14, Florida Administrative Code remains in force. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 9 relates to 1989 and is treated in paragraph 5 of the findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 10 merely recites a witness' testimony. See paragraph 5 of the findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 14 is treated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 through 19 pertain to DOAH Case Nos. 85-0556, et al. To the extent material, they have been adopted, in substance. See paragraphs 14, 17, 18 and 19 of the findings of fact. Procedural wrongs, if any, done petitioner in DOAH Case Nos. 85-0556, et al., cannot be redressed in a collateral formal administrative proceeding like this one. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 21 has been adopted to this extent: consistent application of the "first in time, first in right" policy would have required approval of the application. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 22 is largely legal argument. The transcript cite does not support the one factual assertion. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 25 has been adopted in substance except for the filing date. The petition is dated March 17, 1986, but the record does not show when it was filed. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27 is incorrect because superseded. See Paragraph 23 of the findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 25 through 31 and 35 accurately recite Heartland's witnesses' testimony but this view has been rejected as being against the greater weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 36 recites a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for application of the poverty adjustment. The district poverty rate must also exceed the statewide average rate. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 40 has not been adopted because it was not established by the weight of the evidenced. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 41 and 42 pertain to other formal administrative proceedings, Case Nos. 86-1354 and 86-1702. To the extent material, they have been adopted in substance. See paragraphs 20-23 of the findings of fact. Procedural wrongs done petitioner, if any, in Case Nos. 86- 1354 and 86-1702 cannot be redressed in collateral formal proceedings. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9, 11, 12 the first sentence of No. 13, and No. 14 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Respondent's proposed findings of fact 5 and 10 recite HRS policy as articulated in the recently withdrawn rule proposed on batching. See paragraph 16 of the findings of fact. The semiannual nursing home report for January 1986 does address the 1959 horizon. The second sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 13 relates to Case Nos. 85-0556, and 85-0574. The precise state of the record in those cases is immaterial to the present case. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore,Esq. Kenneth A. Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 B. Elaine New, Esquire R. Bruce McKibben, Esq. 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of a 60-bed sheltered nursing home adjacent to a 75-unit life care residential facility in HRS Health District IX, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be granted (in whole or in part), or denied.
Findings Of Fact I. The Proposal Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation organized to provide retirement and nursing home services to aged Episcopalians in the three Episcopal Dioceses in Florida: Central, Southwest and Southeast. Since 1951, Petitioner has operated a life care facility or community, with adjacent nursing home, in Davenport, Florida. It has 71 residential (well-care) units and 60 nursing home beds, operates at nearly full capacity, and has a 3-to-5 year waiting list. There are 128 residents at the facility, 57 of whom live in the nursing home. Petitioner now seeks to replicate the (Davenport) Crane Gray Inn in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida, in order to better serve the needs of older Episcopalians. The life care community, consisting of a 60-bed skilled nursing home and a 75- unit retirement facility, would be convenient to the residents of the Southeast Florida diocese, but is expected to draw residents throughout Florida. The 60-bed skilled nursing home, for which a CON is required, would be a one-story building measuring 19,100 square feet. Initially estimated to cost $1,705,515, or $68.06 per square foot to construct and equip, actual bids subsequently received have reduced the expected cost to $60.00 per square foot. The total cost of the entire project, including the well- care and nursing-care facilities, is estimated to be $3,600,000. Petitioner intends to obtain certification of the entire project as a continuing care facility in accordance with Chapter 651, Florida Statutes. In March, 1985, the State of Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer issued Petitioner a provisional license to operate the proposed facility as a continuing care facility.2 Petitioner intends to comply with the reporting and escrow requirements which Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, imposes on life-care facilities. The admission requirements for the proposed life care facility are the same as those which have applied to the Davenport Crane Gray Inn ("Inn"). Before admission, a resident must execute a continuing care or "Resident's Agreement" with the Inn. Under that agreement, in exchange for the future maintenance and support of the resident at the Inn for the remainder of the applicant's life, the applicant transfers all of his or her real and personal property to the Inn. The resident also agrees to execute a will to the Inn to effectuate the transfer of property then owned or later acquired. No entrance fee is charged. The Inn promises to provide the resident with a personal living unit (including all utilities); three meals a day; health care (including medicine, physician fees, dental care, and hospitalization); recreational, educational, social and religious programs; funeral and burial costs; a monthly allowance for personal expenses; weekly maid service and laundry facilities; and transportation for shopping trips and other activities. Either party may terminate the agreement under specified conditions. On termination, the Inn will transfer back to the resident the property previously conveyed, or a sum equal to the value thereof, without interest and deducting therefrom an amount sufficient to compensate the Inn for the resident's care and support while at the Inn. If the resident becomes eligible for social security or government assistance, such assistance is paid to the Inn for the support of the resident. If the resident dies while at the Inn, all property transferred to the Inn on admission is considered to have been earned and becomes the property of the Inn. (Joint Exhibit I) There is no requirement that a prospective resident have any assets and applicants are ostensibly admitted without regard to their financial condition. (However, in the past ten years, only two Medicaid patients or indigent residents have been admitted to the Davenport Inn.) An account for each resident is maintained, to which earnings are transferred and costs of care deducted. Residents without assets are treated the same as those with assets and the account information is treated confidentially. Over time, the accounts of residents are depleted. Currently, 68% of the patients at the Davenport nursing home are Medicaid patients. The per diem rate reimbursed by Medicaid is $51.25. No resident has ever been transferred for lack of funds. However, the average resident, when admitted, transfers assets worth approximately $24,000 to the Inn. Prospective residents of the proposed nursing home will ordinarily come from the adjacent well-care retirement units. The purpose of the nursing home is to serve the individuals residing in the life care community who, as their needs intensify, require skilled nursing care. Only on rare occasions will an individual be admitted directly to the nursing home without first residing in the well-care portion of the life care community. At the Davenport Inn, this has happened only once. Petitioner acknowledges that prospective nursing home patients may come from eligible Episcopalians who reside in nursing homes in the local community. Actual residence in the well-care units will not be a prerequisite to admission to the nursing home. However, no person has been, or will be, admitted to the nursing home without first executing a continuing care agreement. Direct admission of nursing home patients from outside the life care center is permissible under "sheltered nursing home" rules, as construed by HRS officials. Robert E. Maryanski, Administrator of HRS' Community Medical Facilities Office of Health Planning and Development (which implements the CON licensing process) advised Petitioner's counsel on September 20, 1985, that under HRS rules, patients may--if necessary--be admitted directly to the proposed nursing home without first residing in the well-care units. Individuals who have paid for membership with the particular life care center, finding themselves in immediate need of nursing home care, may be directly admitted into the nursing home. (Petitioner's Ex. No. 11) If HRS rules were interpreted otherwise, perfunctory stops in well-care units "on the way to the nursing home" would be encouraged, a practice which would burden patients and serve no useful purpose. Although Petitioner's CON application does not specify a minimum age for admission to the life care community, Petitioner's life care centers are oriented toward members of the Episcopal Protestant Churches who are at an advanced age and "need a place to go for their last days... [In] a lot of cases they have outlived their own children." (TR-34) The average age of the patients in the Davenport nursing home is 89; in the well-care retirement units, 82. The average overall age of members of the Davenport life care community is 84 or 85. Approximately one-half of the residents eventually need nursing care. At Davenport, the minimal age for admission is 71. (TR- 12) According to a member of the Board of Directors of Petitioner, only patients 70 or over will be admitted to the life care community proposed for Palm Beach County. (TR-35) There is already a waiting list of ninety (90) qualified persons for the proposed life care community in Palm Beach County. Out of that figure, only five people currently require nursing home services. After executing the standard continuing care agreement, these five people would be admitted directly to the nursing home facility, without first residing in a well-care unit. Waiting lists are compiled six times a year, with the most recent completed only a week prior to hearing. Petitioner does not intend to utilize all the nursing home beds, since it must keep some beds open to meet the needs of well-care residents. Nursing home beds at the Palm Beach facility would be filled gradually, approximately two per week, so it would take six months to reach optimum capacity. The parties stipulate that all criteria for evaluating CON applications under Section 381.494(6)(c) and Rule 10-5.11, Florida Administrative Code, have been met or are inapplicable except for the following: The long-term financial feasibility of the project, the availability of operating capital, and the economic impact on other providers (Section 381.494(6) (c)8, 9, Fla. Stat.); The cost of construction (Section 381.494(6) (c)13, Fla. Stat.); The ratio of beds to residential units (Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Fla. Admin. Code). II. Financial Feasibility The historical track record of the Davenport facility over the last 13 years and projections for the proposed facility demonstrate that the proposed nursing home is financially feasible and that Petitioner has, or can obtain sufficient funds to meet its operating costs. Moreover, as a licensed Chapter 651 life care facility, the financial viability of the entire operation will be monitored by the Department of Insurance. Assets available to support the costs of operating the life care community include income and assets derived from incoming residents; estates and bequests; and a fund of 1,300,000.00, functioning as an endowment, to be placed in escrow. The cost for a resident in the well-care units is approximately $27 per day; the cost in the nursing home is approximately $54 per day. Although there is a deficit of approximately $300 per month in the well-care section of the Davenport facility, there is no deficiency in the nursing home. Medicaid payments are sufficient to cover the costs of providing nursing care. Philanthropy should not be required to sustain the operation of the proposed nursing home. Petitioner has never had difficulty in obtaining financial support for its Davenport well-care units. More than one-half of the operating deficit for the well-care units was met by funds at work and did not depend on philanthropy. There are over 200 Episcopal Churches in the three Florida dioceses with 90-100,000 parishioners, who have been responsive to fund- raising efforts in the past. Last year, Petitioner raised $693,000 from fund raising drives. It is reasonably expected that this source of financial support will also be available to support the proposed life care facility, including the nursing home. An endowment fund of $1,300,000 is also available. These funds will be made available to support the proposed life care community. In addition, each new resident contributes an average of $24,000, which is used to defray operating costs. Barnett Bank will finance construction of the project at one-half percent over prime. Petitioner intends to pay off the capital debt in two or three years. The land has already been acquired and some land preparation costs have been paid. Petitioner has expended over $800,000, to date, on the proposed life care community. Petitioner has $120, 000 on hand for the project, in addition to escrowed reserves. An HRS health care planner has misgivings about the financial viability of the project since Petitioner has relied on philanthropy to support its Davenport facility, and would rely on it to some extent to support the proposed facility. However, Petitioner projects that 77% of the nursing home patients at the proposed facility will be Medicaid eligible. Due to efficiencies in operation, Medicaid payments should be sufficient to cover the costs of nursing home patients at the proposed facility, just as they have been at the Davenport nursing home. The various sources of funds available to Petitioner--proven wholly adequate in the past--should be sufficient to cover the other costs of operation and ensure the continued financial viability of the nursing home, as well as the associated well-care units. III. Cost of Construction HRS contends that the initial estimate of construction costs for the proposed nursing home ($68.00 per square foot) is excessive when compared to other 60-bed nursing facilities, where the cost is approximately $10.00 less per square foot. But, through various cost-cutting measures, the cost of the project has now been reduced to approximately $60.00 per square foot, which is reasonable and in line with the other nursing home projects. IV. Ratio of Nursing Rome Beds to Residential Units Rule 10-5.11(22)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides that HRS "will not normally approve an application for new or additional sheltered nursing home beds if approved would result in the number of sheltered nursing home beds that exceed one for every four residential units in the life care facility." The parties stipulate that, absent unusual or exceptional circumstances, this rule would preclude approval of more than 19 of Petitioner's 60 proposed nursing home beds. The proposed nursing home, like the Davenport facility it duplicates, will be unique, unusual or extraordinary, when compared with other nursing homes in Florida, due to the advanced age of its patients. No one under 70 will be admitted. The average age of its patients is expected to approach 89 with the average age of well-care residents approaching 82. Approximately one-half of the well-care residents will eventually require transfer into the nursing home. People of advanced age are more likely to require nursing home care. Based on Petitioner's historical experience at its Davenport facility, it is likely that 60 nursing home beds will be required to meet the needs of residents of the proposed well- care units. It has been shown that the proposed 60 nursing beds will be needed to serve the needs of well-care residents as they age and their health care needs intensify. That has been the case at the Davenport facility, where rarely has a patient been admitted to the nursing home who did not first reside in the well-care units. The proposed nursing home and life care center will draw patients and residents similar to those drawn by the Davenport facility--the state-wide applicant "pool" of both is expected to be the same. For this reason, the proposed nursing home should have no significant impact on the census of, or need for, community nursing homes in Palm Beach County. It appears that the rationale behind the four-to-one (residential units to nursing home beds) ratio of the HRS rule is that, under normal or ordinary conditions, only one nursing home bed will be required to serve the residents of four well- care units. In the instant case, actual experience has shown this assumption to be patently erroneous. If only 19 nursing home beds were allowed Petitioner--because of the ratio cast in HRS rules--it is likely that many well-care residents at the proposed life care center would be forced to find nursing care outside of the center. Displaced, placed in nursing homes distant from the life care community, such patients would lose close contact with spouses and friends. The HRS rule, embracing a numerical ratio for the norm, allows flexibility in particular situations which are shown to be abnormal. The circumstances of the instant case show it to be an abnormal situation, fully justifying approval of 60-beds sought, rather than the 19 otherwise permitted by the HRS rule.
Recommendation Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of a 60-bed nursing home in Palm Beach County be GRANTED; and that the CON, on its face, state that issuance is predicated on Petitioner's statement of intent (during Section 120.57(1) licensing proceedings) that (i.) no one under 70 years of age will be admitted to the life care community (including both well-care and nursing-care sections) and (ii.) that, only in relatively rare and unusual cases, will patients be directly admitted to the nursing home without first residing in the well- care residential units of the life care communities.3 See, Section 381.494(8)(g), Florida Statutes (1985). DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulations of the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Surrey and Careage each timely filed their letters of intent and applications for Certificates of Need to establish 120-bed nursing homes in Polk County in the July 1986, batching cycle. Pursuant to the nursing home need methodology rule, there is a numeric need for 168 nursing home beds in Polk County in July of 1989. A Stipulation and Settlement Agreement enter into prior to the final hearing resulted in the award of 40 beds to other applicants, thus leaving a numeric need for 128 beds for the planning horizon addressed by the applications at issue in this proceeding. No evidence of numeric need beyond that established by the nursing home need methodology rule was presented by Surrey or Careage. Health Care Associates (HCA) is owned by John A. McCoy and Stanford L. Hoye and was formed in 1977 to develop, design, build and manage skilled nursing facilities and retirement facilities throughout the country. It currently owns, operates or is developing approximately 18 skilled nursing facilities in the State of Florida, including a 120-bed nursing home in Winter Haven, known as Brandywine. All HCA licensed nursing home facilities in Florida hold a "Superior" rating. HCA has a documented history of implementing its Certificates of Need within the statutory time frame. HCA now proposes to establish a second 120-bed skilled nursing home in Winter Haven to be known as Surrey Place of Polk County. The two HCA facilities in Winter Haven will be independent and competing facilities, through there will be a shared utilization of training programs. This proposed facility is to be built in conjunction with a 60-bed personal care facility (an adult congregate living facility) which will share common services, such as administration, laundry and dietary services. The costs related to the personal care facility are not included in Surrey's Certificate of Need application. Surrey has determined that the project will be located on one of two sites in Winter Haven. Both sites are properly zoned, and Surrey already owns one of the sites. The projected total project cost for the proposed Surrey 120-bed skilled nursing home facility is $3,000,000. The costs associated with land acquisition and site development, furniture, fixtures and equipment and architectural fees appear reasonable and are in line with HCA's past experiences in developing nursing homes in Florida. The construction cost for building the facility--$2,146,000 or $48.70 per square foot--is low because HCA owns the company which will construct the facility. Construction will be done at cost and at no separate profit to HCA. The Surrey proposal results in a construction cost per bed figure of $17,883; an equipment cost per bed figure of $2,084; and an operating cost per bed figure of $20,031.75. The total project cost of $3,000,000 results in a cost per bed of $25,000. Surrey proposes to obtain financing for 87% of the total project cost, or $2,600,000, and to provide owner equity for the remaining $400,000. Meritor Savings is ready, willing and able to finance the project and Dr. McCoy and Mr. Hoye, the owners of HCA, have the financial ability to make the equity contribution. Surrey's facility will contain 44,000 gross square feet and will be comprised of 8 private rooms and 56 semiprivate rooms. The schematic drawing contained in the application is now somewhat outmoded compared to how HCA is currently building nursing facilities. In its newer facilities, the patient rooms have vaulted ceilings and bathing units on outside walls with cubical glass which admits more light. HCA's existing nursing home facility in Winter Haven enjoys a good reputation amongst physicians who are on the staff of Winter Haven Hospital and refer patients to that facility. At the proposed facility, Surrey intends to offer a continuum of care by providing independent living units adjacent to the nursing home. In addition to providing skilled and intermediate level nursing services, Surrey intends to offer various programs including physical therapy, speech therapy, hearing and occupational therapy, social services, recreational programs and agreements with other organizations to ensure the highest quality of discharge planning and follow-up services. While not listed in its application, Surrey intends to provide services to Alzheimer patients, though not in a separate and distinct unit. As a part of its social and recreational services, Surrey intends to provide programs such as pet therapy, creative writing, senior olympics and a grandchild program. In addition, Surrey intends to offer adult day Dare and respite care within the confines of the personal care living facility. Surrey does not intend to offer subacute care services at the proposed facility. The total staffing of 72.4 for the proposed Surrey facility includes 5.5 full-time equivalent registered nurses, 5.5 full-time equivalent licensed practical nurses and 34 full-time equivalent nurse's aides. This equates to a ratio of 1 registered nurse per 21.8 patients, 1 licensed practical nurse per 21.8 patients and 1 aide per 3.5 patients. As a means of attracting nursing staff, Surrey offers recruitment seminars at nursing schools and has associated with Polk Community College to aid in training and recruitment. All HCA facilities have accreditation programs for certified nursing assistants (CNAs), and its existing Winter Haven facility is utilized by Polk Community College for the on-site training of CNAs. In order to aid its recruitment efforts, HCA is enhancing its benefit package and also is building child day care centers as an additional benefit for staff members. These centers are also available to visitors to the nursing home. The cost of the child care centers is not included within Surrey's total project cost. HCA's director of quality assurance works with the assistant directors of nurses in each facility to design and promote continuing education programs for the professional nursing staff. HCA has a history of providing services to Medicare and Medicaid patients in its Florida facilities. Surrey proposes to devote 49% of its patient days to Medicaid patients, 15% to Medicare patients, 1% to V.A. patients and 35% to private pay patients. These calculations are based upon HCA's experience in other existing facilities. The elderly poverty rate in Polk County is 16.6%. Upon opening, Surrey proposes the following per diem charges: $53.00 for Medicaid and V.A. patients, $65.00 for Medicare patients, $90.00 for private pay patients in a private room, and $62.00 for private pay patients in a semiprivate room. In answers to interrogatories served in November of 1987, Surrey listed its projected charges as $70.00 for private pay, $76.00 for Medicare and $64.00 for Medicaid patients. The figures used in Surrey's pro forma are based upon the actual experience of HCA in developing similar facilities. The pro forma projections are based upon Surrey's expectation of a 97% occupancy rate at the end of year one and throughout year two. Other than the Administrator's salary being admittedly low, the pro forma projections appear reasonable. Surrey anticipates a net loss in the first year of operation of $349,120 and a net profit in the second year of $121,150. In terms of cash flow, Surrey projects a negative cash flow of $143,440 at the end of its first year and a positive cash flow of $326,770 at the end of its second year of operation. Surrey's proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the nursing home and long-term care components of the District VI Health Plan and the State Health Plan. Careage Investment, Inc., owned by Gene D. Lynn, has been in existence since May 1, 1962, and has developed and constructed over 250 medical complexes, hospitals, and nursing homes throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. Careage currently has four operating nursing homes, with a fifth having recently been opened. These nursing homes include a 59-bed facility in Coupeville, Washington, a 99-bed facility in Tracy, California, a 232-bed facility in Phoenix, Arizona, a 114-bed facility in Oroville, California, and the new facility of 144 beds in Chico, California. Careage proposes a 120-bed skilled nursing home to be located in Lakeland. The facility will include a separate and distinct 21-bed unit for Alzheimer patients and a 10-bed subacute care unit. While Careage does not presently own property for the proposed facility, it has identified several available four-acre sites which have utilities and direct access to public streets. Its $515,000 figure proposed for land acquisition appears reasonable. The total cost of the proposed Careage project is $4,150,000. The cost of constructing the 45,500 gross square foot facility is $2,583,125 and equates to a construction cost per square foot of $56.77 and a construction cost per bed of $21,526. Careage proposes equipment costs of $420,000 or $3,500 per bed. Its operating cost per bed is $23,395. The overall project cost of $4,150,000 equates to a cost of $34,583 per bed. Careage proposes to obtain 100% financing of the total project cost at an interest rate of 10%, with the term of the loan being 30 years. Based upon Mr. Lynn's personal financial statement and Careage's past ability to obtain financing for other nursing home facilities, these expectations appear reasonable. The architect retained by Careage to design the proposed facility in Lakeland received an award from the Contemporary Long Term Care magazine in 1986 for another nursing home designed and constructed in Bakersfield, California. The proposed Lakeland facility will contain 45,500 square feet, which translates into 379 gross square feet per bed. Its patient room arrangements include two isolation rooms, 7 private rooms, 45 semiprivate rooms and a 21-bed special Alzheimer unit with 10 semiprivate rooms and one private room. The facility will be a one-story building, with aquariums visible from the reception area and the dining room. The design includes a beauty and barber shop, a chapel, a gift shop, recreation areas, a private dining room area and outside courtyards. Each patient room will have a bathroom with a sink, as well as a sink in the outer room in semiprivate rooms. Also, in semiprivate rooms, the beds will be placed on opposite head walls to allow each resident to have a view of the window when the other pulls the curtain. Each room will have its own temperature control. The facility will also have occupational and physical therapy rooms. In order to afford more patient privacy, the service areas are located away from the ancillary spaces. Careage's quality assurance program will include a utilization review committee, a safety committee, an infection control committee, a pharmaceutical committee, a resident advisory council, a community advisory council and employee advisory groups. A corporate representative visits all Careage nursing homes on an interim basis to review the day-to-day operations, facility maintenance and physical environment. As noted, Careage proposes to offer a 10-bed subacute care unit. This unit will provide services for the care of technology dependent children, many of whom are recovering from automobile accidents, severe illness, neuromuscular disease or congenital disorders. The subacute unit will also offer such services as hyperalimintation, IV infusion, morphine drip, use of Hickman catheters and other services traditionally performed in the acute care hospital setting. Alzheimer Disease is a fatal illness evidenced by a progressive deterioration of mental, motor, cognitive, physical, social and psychological processes. The problems suffered by Alzheimer patients include nutritional problems, communication problems, disorientation, loss of memory, problems with elimination and basic personal care, agitation, catastrophic reactions, wandering and problems with safety. The Careage approach in offering a separate and distinct Alzheimer unit is to provide behavioral and environmental care. When more skilled nursing care is required than behavioral or environmental care, the Alzheimer patient is then moved to another skilled bed. The separate Alzheimer unit will utilize a specially trained staff and a team approach to any required changes in treatment. The separate 21-bed unit will provide security and will have its own dining room and recreation area. The decor will be designed to promote less agitation. Careage will provide a separate outdoor exercise courtyard for its Alzheimer patients along with various activity programs, such as short reminiscent programs and music therapy. Careage will also offer family and community education programs regarding the needs and care of Alzheimer patients, and encourages the use of volunteers to help adapt the Alzheimer residents to daily living as much as possible. The advantages of providing a separate and distinct Alzheimer unit include the safety features, the ability to utilize a trained staff and a team approach to patients who may have a wide variety of symptoms, less disruption to other residents in the nursing home, and the provision of a more appropriate decor and specialized programs for the Alzheimer patient. Careage proposes to offer respite care services on a space-available basis. Adult day care services will also be offered in a separate entity adjoining the nursing home facility, but the cost associated with that is not a part of Careage's application for a Certificate of Need. Careage proposes to staff the Lakeland facility with 96 full-time equivalent positions. These include 11.9 registered nurses, 7.4 licensed practical nurses and 42.1 certified nurses aides, which equates to a ratio of 1 registered nurse per 10.1 patients, 1 licensed practical nurse per 16.2 patients, and 1 aide per 2.9 patients. Careage intends to offer three hours of nursing care per patient day for the Alzheimer's and skilled areas, and at least six hours per patient day for the subacute and Medicare-certified residents. The staffing proposed meets and exceeds the requirements of Florida regulations. In recruiting staff for its new facilities, Careage advertises in advance of opening in newspapers and periodicals and contacts are made with nursing schools. It offers a liberal fringe benefit package, competitive salaries, in-service training, continuing education assistance and child day care services in adjoining portions of the nursing home. Careage also attempts to use the elderly both as volunteers and staff members. It intends to utilize its facility as a clinical site for schools of nursing, schools of dentistry and other programs within the medical community. Gene D. Lynn, the owner of Careage, has endowed a program in rural nursing at Seattle University. In its first and second years of operation, Careage proposes a payor mix of 40% Medicaid, 4% Medicare, 6% subacute, 3% VA and 47% private pay. Its philosophy with regard to care for medically underserved groups is to serve all populations, regardless of age, sex, religion, national origin or payor status. The payor mix anticipated by Careage is consistent with that being experienced in other facilities in Polk County. The patient charges proposed by Careage are based upon the experience of other providers within Polk County and Careage's own experience in its other facilities. Careage proposes a Medicaid per diem charge of $57.50, a Medicare all inclusive charge of $105.00, a private and VA per diem charge of $60.00 and a subacute charge of $125.00. The assumptions contained in the Careage financial pro forma are based partly upon the experience of existing nursing homes in Polk County and the experience of Careage in other facilities, and appear reasonable. At the end of its first-year of operation, Careage projects a net loss of $161,994.20. A net income of $127,936.61 is projected for the end of the second year of operation. The Careage proposal conforms with the goals and priorities of the District VI Health Plan's nursing home component as well as the goals and objectives of the Florida State Health Plan. Overall occupancy rates in existing nursing homes in Polk County exceed 90 percent. More than half of the Polk County nursing homes currently have waiting lists for admission. In February of 1985, Winter Haven Hospital opened 100 beds that are classified as subacute beds and are reimbursed as skilled nursing beds. For calendar year 1987, the average occupancy rate of the Winter Haven Hospital subacute unit was 65 or 66%. As of the date of the hearing, the census was 78. Higher utilization throughout the Hospital is typically experienced in the first quarter of the calendar year. While the Administrator of Winter Haven Hospital did not feel there was a need for more subacute beds in Polk County, he also felt that the Careage proposal for 10 subacute beds would have a minimal effect upon Winter Haven Hospital. According to a telephone survey, no nursing homes in Polk County currently accept ventilator dependent patients, pediatric or neonatal patients or technology dependent children. It is estimated that between 3 and 22 technology dependent children will need services in Polk County in 1989. Only five nursing homes in Polk County accept patients on IV therapy. Only one nursing home facility in Polk County has a separate and distinct unit for Alzheimer residents. It is estimated that 1,660 persons with Alzheimer Disease will require nursing home services by the year 1989. When conducting its initial review of the competing applications for nursing home beds in Polk County, as well as other counties, HRS staff attempted to compare the applicants by utilizing a "matrix" which compiled the data and information presented in the respective applications. The information initially displayed revealed numerous errors and omissions. The matrix was then revised and information was again compiled to make it an accurate tool for comparative purposes. With few exceptions, all of the data elements in the matrix are items included in the application forms. After balancing the various items, such as facility size, proposed programs, project and construction costs, per diem charges, payor mix, and levels of staffing, HRS initially determined that Careage was the superior applicant. At the final hearing, additional errors were discovered in the display of information contained in the matrix. The errors were corrected and did not change the opinion of HRS's health planning expert that Careage was the superior applicant.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Surrey to establish a 120-bed nursing home in Polk County be DENIED, and that the application of Careage be GRANTED, conditioned upon the inclusion of a 21-bed separate Alzheimer unit, a 10-bed subacute care unit and the provision of at least 40 percent of patient days to Medicaid patients. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of June, 1988, 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 6th day of June 1988. APPENDIX (Case NO. 87-0680) The parties' proposed findings of fact have been fully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: SURREY 9. Last two sentences rejected. The first is irrelevant and immaterial to the project under review. The last is refuted by the greater weight of the evidence. 17-19. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 23. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 28. Rejected as argumentative and not a proper factual finding. 29,30. Rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. 57. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence rejected as hearsay and conclusiory. Rejected as to "methods of construction," as not supported by competent, substantial evidence. CAREAGE 2. Factually accepted, but not included as irrelevant. 15. Accepted with reservation. It is unclear from the evidence as to whether adult day care is a part of the nursing home project. Partially rejected insofar as it is argumentative and a mere recitation of testimony. Last sentence rejected as unsupported by the evidence. HRS 11. Rejected. Since Surrey does not intend to use the plans submitted in the application; the net living space cannot be determined. Accepted only if the words "on paper" are added to the end of the sentence. First sentence accepted if "on paper" added. 24. Accepted but not included, as there was no way to make a similar comparison with the Surrey facility. 41. Rejected as legal argument as opposed to factual finding. 42,43. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Reynold Meyer F. Phillip Blank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr. MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert S. Cohen Haben & Culpepper, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Parties Manor-Sarasota Manor Health Care Corporation operates 140 nursing centers throughout the country with nine nursing homes and three adult congregate living facilities (ACLF) in Florida. Seven of the nine Florida nursing homes are rated superior and two are standard. Manor-Sarasota is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Manor Health Care Corporation, and currently owns and operates a 120 bed nursing home, with a 120 bed ACLF, at 5511 Swift Road, Sarasota, Florida. The facility opened in December, 1983 and currently has a standard license, although for a period in 1986 its license was conditional. Manor-Sarasota is currently licensed as a skilled nursing home providing trach care, nasogastric feedings, wound care, physical, speech and occupational therapy, as well as Clinatron beds for patients with severe decubitus ulcers. On or about January 15, 1987, Manor-Sarasota filed CON application number 5050 for the addition of sixty community nursing home beds at its facility. The proposed additional beds will include a separate 30-bed specialized unit for elderly persons suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders. Manor Health Care Corporation currently operates 13 to 15 Alzheimer's units within their existing centers. Between 30 percent - 50 percent of Manor-Sarasota's current patients are diagnosed as having Alzheimer's or related disorders. There are no specialized facilities for Alzheimer's patients in Sarasota at the current time. The current facility is a two-story nursing home, and the additional beds would be configured in a two-story addition of thirty-five beds on the first floor and twenty-five beds on the second floor. The thirty-bed Alzheimer's unit would be located on the first floor. A separate dining room for Alzheimer's patients will also be provided. An additional nurse's station would be added to provide 4 nurse's stations for 180 beds. Total project costs are reasonably projected at $1.85 million, with construction costs of $1.26 million, equipment costs of approximately $170,000, professional services of approximately $137,000 and related costs of approximately $253,000. The proposal would add 16,683 gross square feet to the existing 49,454 gross square feet. The total project cost per additional bed would be $30,872, while the construction cost per square foot would be $55.00. The gross square footage per bed would be 278 feet. Manor-Sarasota projects a 40 percent Medicaid and 60 percent private pay utilization for the 60 bed addition, although its Medicaid utilization at the existing facility has only been between 15 percent and 24 percent. Since there is an upward trend in Medicaid utilization, Manor-Sarasota would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition on its CON, if approved. Medicare patients will continue to be served within the existing facility. The project will be funded through 25 percent equity and 75 percent financing. Manor Health Care Corporation will finance the project internally through the sale of assets, and the sale of senior subordinated notes and convertible subordinated debentures, and this financing proposal is reasonable and realistic. In Manor-Sarasota's original application, six 3-bed wards were proposed. As a result of criticism of 3-bed wards in the Department's State Agency Action Report (SAAR) concerning this application as well as other facilities, the applicant modified its proposed design to eliminate all 3-bed wards and to include 24 semiprivate and 12 private rooms. The square footage of the addition was also increased by 21 percent from 13,750 to 16,683 square feet. This modification was presented at hearing and was filed subsequent to the application being deemed complete, and the SAAR being prepared. Competent substantial evidence in support of the original application was not offered, but rather evidence was presented in support of the substantially modified proposal. The applicant's existing 120-bed nursing home has experienced over 90 percent occupancy for the months of November, 1987 to the date of hearing, and also experienced an average occupancy of approximately 86 percent for 1986 and the first ten months of 1987. During the first year of operation, 65 percent occupancy is projected for the 60 new beds which are now being sought, and 95 percent occupancy is projected for the second year of operation. Sarasota Healthcare Sarasota Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership whose general partners are Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Sarasota Healthcare proposes to enter into a management agreement with Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) for the operation and administration of their proposed facility. The Kelletts, as 100 percent owners, comprise the Board of Directors of CSI and also serve as its Chairman and President. CSI operates 21 nursing homes in seven states, and 85 percent of its beds have superior licenses. There are 6 CSI operated nursing homes in Florida, one of which, Pinebrook Place, is located in Sarasota County in the City of Venice. Pinebrook Place is a 120 bed nursing home and has a superior license. Sarasota Healthcare does not own or operate any other nursing homes. A new 120 bed freestanding nursing home is proposed by Sarasota Healthcare in CON application 5025, which was filed with the Department in January, 1987. The project would be located in Sarasota County at a specific site which has not yet been identified. Sarasota Healthcare projects a utilization of 40 percent Medicaid, 5 percent Medicare and 55 percent private pay at its proposed facility, and would accept a 40 percent Medicaid condition of this CON, if approved. The proposed facility would offer skilled, intermediate, respite and hospice care; specialized services for Alzheimer's patients; physical, occupational, speech and rehabilitative therapy; counseling; and social services. Alzheimer's patients will not be located in a separate unit but will be intermingled with other patients while receiving specialized services and protections for their disease. Sarasota Healthcare proposes a 120 bed nursing home comprised of 12 private and 54 semiprivate rooms, 37,7000 gross square feet and a total project cost of $3.9 million The proposed size and cost of this facility are reasonable. The cost per bed would be $32,500 and the construction cost per square foot would be $58.00. Total project costs are reasonable and consist of approximately $2.45 million in construction costs, $385,000 in equipment costs, $145,000 for professional services, land acquisition of $600,000 for 3 to 5 acres, and $324,000 in related costs. The gross square footage per bed would be 314 feet. The project will be funded with 25 percent equity funding from the general partners, Stiles and Samuel Kellett, and 75 percent from a commercial bank, assuming a 9.5 percent interest rate with 1 percent discount point. The proposal is reasonable, but is dependent upon the general partners' ability to personally fund 25 percent of the costs of the project through an equity contribution, and on their ability to obtain commercial financing for the remaining project costs. Financial statements of the Kelletts provided in the record of this proceeding are unaudited, and were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Kelletts have 15 CON applications currently pending, and 4 have already been approved. They have a 6 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Health Quest On or about January 15, 1987, Health Quest corporation submitted an application for CON number 5046 on behalf of Regents Park of Lake Pointe Woods for the addition of 58 new beds to its existing 53 sheltered bed nursing home at a projected cost of approximately $1.29 million. The existing sheltered nursing home facility is known as Regents Park of Sarasota which is part of the Lake Point Woods Retirement Center containing a 110 bed ACLF and 212 retirement apartment units. The sheltered nursing home opened in November, 1986, and has achieved 90 percent occupancy since October, 1987. It is licensed under Chapter 651, Florida Statutes, as a continuing care facility. Health Quest owns and operates nine nursing centers in three states, and has received CON approval for 12 additional facilities in three states, including four in Florida. One of these Florida CONs is for 180 new community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. Health Quest's existing Regents Park of Sarasota nursing home is located at 7979 South Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, Florida. Although it is a sheltered nursing home, only one or two beds are generally occupied by Lake Point Woods residents at any one time. During 1987, only 26 admissions to Regents Park came from Lake Pointe Woods, and most of these admissions were for episodic illnesses of less than 30 days rather than for longer term care. Thus, the vast majority of admissions at Regents Park have been from the community, including admissions directly from home, hospitals and other nursing homes, rather than from the retirement center, Lake Pointe Woods, of which Regents Park is a part. However, since existing beds at Regents Park are sheltered, community patients will not be able to be admitted there beyond November, 1991, the expiration of five years from its opening. During its year and a half of operation, Regents Park has not shown a profit, despite original projections of profitability after only one year. In response to the Department's omissions letter dated February 19, 1987, Health Quest notified the Department, by letter dated March 27, 1987, of its amendment to CON application 5046. Rather than pursuing its request for 58 new community nursing home beds, Health Quest amended the application to seek conversion of the 53 sheltered beds to community beds and to add 7 new community nursing home beds. Since no new space is proposed for construction under the amendment, and since virtually all equipment is already in place, Health Quest projected no cost associated with the amended project. However, there would be some minor costs to equip seven new beds, as well as legal and consulting costs associated with this application and hearing. Currently, the Regents Park nursing home has approximately 31,000 total gross square feet, which would result in 520 gross square feet per bed if its application is approved. On April 10, 1987, the Department published its notice of completeness regarding Health Quest's amended CON application 5046 at Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 13, No. 15, p. 1365. The Department reviewed and evaluated Health Quest's amended application, rather than the original application, in preparing its SAAR on the applications at issue in this case dated June 15, 1987. Despite this notice of completeness, the record shows that Health Quest's conversion proposal was incomplete since no balance sheet, profit and loss statement for precious fiscal years of operation, detailed statement of financial feasibility or pro forma were introduced. Although sheltered beds can be certified to accept Medicaid patients, Health Quest has not sought such certification for any of the 53 existing beds at Regents Park. Health Quest proposes to seek Medicaid certification for 5 beds, and to serve 8 percent Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Health Quest does not propose a separate unit for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special outdoor activities for these patients as well as an Alzheimer's club for patients with this primary diagnosis. Health Quest specializes in caring for patients with hip fractures, and offers a wheelchair mobility and ambulation program, rehabilitation and occupational therapy, bowel and bladder rehabilitation, as well as physical and horticulture therapy. Regents Park has patients on intravenous therapy and who require hyperalimentation and total parenteral nutrition. LPN and nurse's aide students from Sarasota Vo/Tech School receive training at the Regents Park nursing home. HCR In 1986, HCR purchased, and currently owns and operates a 147 bed nursing home located at 3250 12th Street, Sarasota, Florida, known as Kensington Manor, which holds a standard license. HCR is a wholly owned subsidiary of Owens-Illinois, a publicly held corporation, and has built over 200 nursing homes in the last 25 years. At the present time, HCR operates approximately 125 facilities with approximately 16,000 beds in 19 States. HCR owns and operates a total of 9 nursing homes in Florida, and has about 10 nursing home projects under development which it intends to operate upon completion. On or about January 14, 1987, HCR filed CON application 5049 with the Department. This application seeks approval of 60 new community nursing home beds at Kensington Manor, at a currently projected cost of $1.82 million, which is a reasonable projection. The cost per new bed would be $30,030. HCR proposes to finance to project with a 25 percent equity contribution, and 75 percent internally financed by HCR through its parent company, Owens-Illinois, and this proposal is realistic and reasonable. Throughout 1986, Kensington Manor had an occupancy level of between 85 percent - 95 percent and is currently operating at 95 percent - 96 percent occupancy. HCR reasonably projects 95 percent occupancy for the 60 new beds in the second year of operation. HCR reasonably proposes a patient mix in the new addition of 45 percent Medicaid, 4 percent Medicare and 51 percent private pay. Kensington Manor is currently 75 percent - 80 percent Medicaid, 1 percent Medicare, and the remainder is private pay, but its proposed patient mix for the new addition is realistic because there will be no three-bed wards in the addition, and sub- acute services will be provided, thereby increasing the Medicare percentage. The HCR proposed addition at Kensington Manor provides a distinct 29 bed wing for Alzheimer's patients where a special care program and special staffing can be made available. Additionally, a 12 person Alzheimer's adult day care center will be physically attached to the new addition where a less intense level of care outside the home can be made available to these patients. Respite care and sub-acute care will also be provided. The project will add a 60 bed, single story addition to Kensington Manor, with a special Alzheimer unit consisting of 1 private and 14 semiprivate rooms, an enclosed courtyard and porch. A second dining room will be added, as well as 2 central bathing areas, multipurpose and physical therapy rooms. The addition would total 18,000 gross square feet, or 267 gross square feet per bed in the new addition. Kensington Manor currently has approximately 30,000 gross square feet, with 1 private and 52 semiprivate rooms, and 14 three-bedroom wards. Therefore with the addition, Kensington Manor would have approximately 48,000 gross square feet which would be approximately 223 square feet per bed for the entire facility. Sisters of Bon Secours The Sisters of Bon Secours, a Catholic religious order, are currently responsible for the operation and ownership, through not-for-profit corporations, of a JCAH accredited 272 community bed nursing home in North Miami having a superior license, a nursing home in Port Charlotte, Charlotte County, and they also have a CON for an additional nursing home to be located in Collier County. On or about January 15, 1987, Sisters filed CON application 5039 for a new 120 community bed nursing home to be located in Sarasota County, and to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. Sisters is the only applicant involved in this case which is not already providing services in Sarasota County. The proposal calls for the development of a teaching nursing home to be designated as a center for training and research in the study of gerontology and long term care. Affiliations with schools and universities will be developed to allow health care administrators, social workers, medical and nursing students, and practitioners interested in developing a specialization to fulfill their clinical studies and requirements. There will be an emphasis on restorative and rehabilitative care, with 20 percent of the beds being designated for sub-acute care patients who could return home after 30-45 days of therapy and transitional care. Sisters will develop a continuum of care by networking in the community. It is the only applicant that proposes to provide a site for education and research in Sarasota County. The proposed facility is intended to serve the needs of members of the Venice Diocese who reside in Sarasota County, where there is currently no Catholic nursing home. The Venice Diocese is now served by the Sisters' nursing home in Charlotte County, and will also be served by the facility to be located in Collier County, for which a CON has already been issued. However, treatment at these nursing homes, including the proposed Villa Maria of Sarasota County, is not limited to Catholics; the Sisters accept, treat and care for persons in need from all religions backgrounds and denominational affiliations. Total project costs are estimated at $6.64 million, including $3.86 million for construction, approximately $592,000 for equipment, $762,000 to acquire a seven acre site, $237,000 for professional services, $888,000 for financing costs and approximately $300,000 in other related costs. The project would encompass almost 60,000 gross square feet, and would cost approximately $55,300 per bed and $64.50 per square foot. Almost 500 gross square feet would be available per bed, which represents the most square footage per bed of any application under consideration. The proposed facility would have 8 private and 56 semiprivate rooms, with in-room tubs and showers, 3 patient lounges, and a 100 seat dining room. Due to the large size of the proposal, some patient rooms exceed 120 feet from nurse's stations. However, this licensure requirement can easily be met with minor design modifications during the licensure process. Sisters project a 33.3 percent Medicaid, 17.6 - 19.7 percent Medicare, 4 percent indigent and 43 percent - 45 percent private pay utilization for the 120 bed nursing home in its first two years of operation. While Medicaid utilization in Dade County during 1987 rose to 68 percent as a county-wide average, Sisters' Dade County nursing home experienced a drop in Medicaid to 14.6 percent. The high Medicare utilization level which has been projected is consistent with, and based on, the experience of the Sisters at their Dade County nursing home which currently has 21 percent Medicare utilization. However, due to the greater number of hospital referral sources, as well as the larger population and fewer competing nursing homes in Dade County compared with Sarasota County, Medicare utilization projections may be overstated, and actually fall between the 3-4 percent historical utilization in the Sarasota area and Sisters' projection. It will be somewhat above 3-4 percent due to the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home which will attract more Medicare patients. The project will be funded with an equity contribution of 10.6 percent ($635,455) and the remaining 89.4 percent ($6 million) will be funded through the issuance of tax exempt bonds. This financing proposal is realistic and reasonable. The proposed nursing home is intended to offer services to AIDS patients, adult day care, and a meals-on-wheels program. However, it was not established at hearing that such patients would definitely be served, or that space would be available at this facility for these services until the Sisters can determine the actual level of need for these services in Sarasota County, if this CON is approved. Department of HRS On or before January 15, 1987, the Department received the CON applications at issue in this case for additional community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. As it relates to this case, the Department issued its SAAR on June 15, 1987, in which the application of HCR (CON 5049) for a 60 community nursing home bed addition to Kensington Manor was approved, and all other applications in this case were denied. In addition to the HCR application, the Department also supported at hearing the applications of Manor Care (CON 5050) for a 60 bed addition to Manor-Sarasota and Sisters of Bon Secours (CON 5039) for a new 120 bed community bed nursing home to be known as Villa Maria of Sarasota County. The Department opposed the issuance of a CON to the remaining applicants. It is the position of the Department that changes or updates to CON applications made after an application has been deemed complete and reviewed in a SAAR, cannot be considered at hearing if such changes or updates are the result of matters or events within the control of the applicant, and which therefore could have been foreseen and considered at the time the application or responses to omissions were filed. However, matters involving payor mix, salaries and charges could result from changes in demographics and economic factors outside of the applicants' control. In such instances, updates or changes to an application based upon current demographics or economics can, and should be, considered at hearing. The updated pro forma submitted by Sarasota Healthcare at hearing resulted from the applicant's desire to reflect current salaries in the Sarasota County labor market, which have increased dramatically since the original application was submitted. As a result of updating salary expense projections, Medicaid and Medicare rates also had to be updated. Associated projections throughout the pro forma which are dependent upon these reimbursement rates, as well as salary expense projections, also had to be updated. The updated pro forma presented by Sarasota Healthcare results from a factor outside of the control of the applicant, inflation, which could not have been foreseen or predicated with certainty in January, 1987. To ignore actual, current inflation data in Sarasota County is to ignore reality. This update is permissible and has been considered. Manor-Sarasota's application presented at hearing includes changes in its proposed payor mix, charges and salaries, as well as its pro forma. These updates are permissible since they result from changes in demographics and inflation outside of the applicant's control which could not have been foreseen in January 1987. However, a 21 percent increase in square footage and elimination of three-bed wards, with associated changes in proposed staffing, capital costs and equipment, while certainly having a positive effect on quality of care, is nevertheless a matter totally within the control of the applicant. The desireability of these changes could have been foreseen at the time the application was filed, and therefore these substantial changes in design represent impermissible amendments to Manor-Sarasota's application. Stipulations The appropriate planning area for these applications is Sarasota County, and the appropriate planning horizon is January, 1990. Sarasota County is in subdistrict 6 of the Department's service district 8. The parties have stipulated that there is a need for 240 additional community nursing home beds in the January, 1990, planning horizon in Sarasota County, in accordance with the bed need formula in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The parties have agreed that Section 381.705(1)(d) and (j), Florida Statutes (1987), have been met, or are not applicable to this case. This statutory criteria deals with the adequacy and availability of alternative health care facilities and the special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations. All remaining criteria found at Section 381.705(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1987), are at issue in this case. Further, the parties stipulate that 1987 amendments to Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, relating to the content of applications, are inapplicable in this proceeding since these applications were filed prior to the effective date of said law. Therefore, application content provisions of Section 381.494(4), Florida Statutes, govern. State and Local Health Plans The 1985 Florida State Health Plan, Volume II, Chapter 8, identifies areas of concern relating to the provision of long-term care services in Florida, which traditionally has been synonymous with nursing home care. These concerns include resource supply, cost containment and resource access. The State Health Plan seeks a reduction in the fragmentation of services and encourages development of a continuum of care. These proposals are consistent with, or do not conflict with, the State Health Plan. The 1984 District Eight Local Health Plan for Nursing Home Care is applicable to these applications for community nursing home beds in Sarasota County. The Local Health Plan contains the following pertinent criteria and standards for review of these applications: Community nursing home services should be available to the residents of each county within District Eight. At a minimum community nursing home facilities should make available, in addition to minimum statutory regulation, in the facility or under contractual arrangements, the following services: pharmacy h. occupational therapy laboratory i. physical therapy x-ray j. speech therapy dental care k. mental health visual care counseling hearing care l. social services diet therapy m. medical services New and existing community nursing home bed developments should dedicate 33 1/3 percent of their beds to use for Medicaid patients. Community nursing home (skilled and intermediate care) facilities in each county should maintain an occupancy rate of at least 90 percent. New community nursing home facilities may be considered for approval when existing facilities servicing comparable service areas cannot reasonably, economically, or geographically provide adequate service to these service areas. No new community nursing home facility should be constructed having less than 60 beds. However, less than 60 beds may be approved as part of an established acute care hospital facility. Each nursing home facility should have a patient transfer agreement with one or more hospitals within an hour's travel time, or the nearest hospital within the same community. The proposed project should have a formal discharge planning program as well as some type of patient follow-up services with discharge/transfer made available seven days a week. Community nursing homes should be accessible to residents throughout District Eight regardless of their ability to pay. All community nursing homes and applicants for community nursing homes should document their history of participation in Medicaid and Medicare programs, and provide data on an ongoing basis to the District Eight Local Health Council as requested. The specifically stated goal of the Local Health Plan is to develop new community nursing home facilities in which at least 33 1/3 percent of the total beds should be Medicaid. The impact of this long range recommended action is stated as follows: The provision of Medicaid care beds in existing nursing homes would assure continuity of care for nursing home patients, and should improve placement in appropriate levels of care by hospitals, physicians, social services, health departments, and other referral groups. The provision for Medicaid beds would reduce cost to patients, utilizing skilled care beds, who could adequately be served by Medicaid. With the exception of Health Quest's application, all other applicants meet the above stated standards and criteria contained in the Local Health Plan. Health Quest's application does not conform to the Local Health Plan. All applicants in this proceeding have indicated that they will provide therapies and services recommended in the Local Health Plan. All applicants, except Health Quest, indicate a commitment to dedicate at least 33 1/3 percent of their beds for Medicaid patients. The new nursing home facilities proposed by Sisters and Sarasota Healthcare would each be for 120 beds, consistent with the Local Health Plan standard that new facilities have at least 60 beds. Health Quest has proposed a 60 bed community nursing home through conversion of 53 sheltered nursing home beds and the addition of 7 new community beds. As existing providers, Manor-Sarasota, HCR band Health Quest have patient transfer agreements with one or more hospitals, as well as formal discharge planning programs and patient follow-up services, as recommended in the Local Health Plan. The applications for new facilities of Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters indicate they will also comply with these priorities if approval is granted and their facilities are opened. By virtue of its existing service and transfer agreements through the CSI facility in Sarasota County, Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare will be able to obtain these necessary agreements. Based upon Sisters' experience in Dade County at Villa Maria, as well as the fact that this will be a teaching nursing home, Sisters will also be able to obtain such agreements. Data has been provided by the existing nursing homes (Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Health Quest) which documents the history of their participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. The other applicants (Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters) have provided Medicaid/Medicare data for other existing facilities with which they are affiliated or upon which their application at issue in this case is based. Based upon this data, Pinebrook Place in Sarasota County, which is owned and operated by Sarasota Healthcare's general partners has not met the Medicaid condition on its CON, and the existing Manor-Sarasota facility has had only 24.8 percent Medicaid utilization in fiscal year 1988: Availability, Accessibility and Adequacy of Like and Existing Services HCR and Manor-Sarasota would increase the availability and adequacy of existing services they are now offering with the 60 bed additions each is seeking. The separate 30-bed specialized unit proposed by Manor-Sarasota and the 29-bed wing proposed by HCR for Alzheimer's patients will clearly increase the availability of specialized services for persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders, as well as their families. HCR will also dedicate 10 beds for sub-acute care, while Manor-Sarasota will offer community outreach, as well as respite care. Sarasota Healthcare, Sisters and Health Quest do not propose special units for Alzheimer's patients, but would offer special programs and services for them and their families. It was established that there is a need for additional services and programs to serve nursing home patients with Alzheimer's and related disorders in Sarasota County, as well as a special need for sub-acute, restorative, hospice, respite, and adult day care in the County. It was not established that there is a need for additional Medicare beds in Sarasota County. Sisters have indicated an interest in offering services to patients with AIDS and patients in need of adult day care, for which there is also a need in Sarasota County. In addition, their application will enhance the availability of sub-acute nursing home services, restorative and rehabilitative care, and respite care in Sarasota County. While it would serve patients of all denominations and religious affiliations, it would be the only Catholic nursing home in Sarasota County. The teaching component of the Sisters' application would provide access for students and other health professionals seeking to further their professional training. The Sarasota Healthcare proposal also places special emphasis on increasing the availability of sub-acute services in Sarasota County. Quality of Care The Sisters will seek JCAH accreditation of the proposed facility if their CON is approved, just as their nursing home in North Miami is currently accredited. The proposed affiliation with a college of medicine and nursing school, and the intent to operate this facility as a teaching nursing home will insure quality of care at this nursing home by utilizing state-of-the-art treatment and therapy programs. Florida nursing homes currently owned or operated by each of the applicants or their affiliated corporations have standard or superior licenses which means they meet or exceed State Standards. Licensure status of facilities owned or operated in other states by the applicants, or their affiliated companies, has not been considered since it was not established that licensure standards in other states are similar, or even comparable, to those in Florida. Each applicant has significant experience rendering quality nursing home care, and each has proposed a reasonable and comprehensive quality assurance program which will insure that quality nursing home services will be provided to their residents. The architectural design proposed by each applicant is reasonable and sufficient to allow quality care to be provided at each facility. All instances where an applicant's design fails to meet final construction standards are relatively minor, and can easily be met during the licensure process with slight modifications and adaptations in design. Staffing proposals by each, while different, will all insure that adequate medical, nursing, counseling and therapeutic staff will be trained and available either on-staff or through contract, to implement quality care programs at each facility. Manor-Sarasota's past reliance on temporary nursing services is decreasing and this will have a positive effect on quality of care. HCR has just completed extensive repairs and renovations costing $350,000 at Kensington Manor which will improve the atmosphere, living conditions and overall quality of care at the facility. Sisters' educational affiliations will aid in recruiting and retaining well-trained staff for its facility. Each facility will be equipped to provide quality care. There was extensive testimony about the advantages and disadvantages of central bathing facilities compared with private baths or showers in patient rooms. Sisters and Health Quest would provide private bathing facilities in patient rooms, while the others would have central facilities. Obviously, individual bathing facilities in patient rooms offer more privacy than central facilities, but privacy can also be achieved in a central bathing area by taking only a single, or limited number of patients to a partitioned central facility at any one time. The central facility is less costly than bathing facilities in each room, and also requires less staff time and involvement to assist with, and insure safety in, the patients' bathing. It has not been shown that one type of bathing facility provided in a nursing home, to the exclusion of all others, affects the quality of care in a positive or adverse manner. Quality care can be, and is, provided under both designs. The elimination of 3-bed wards from Manor-Sarasota's application would have a positive impact on quality of care, and be consistent with the Department's position of discouraging the creation of additional 3-bed wards in nursing homes. However, such elimination was proposed after this application was deemed complete by the Department. Patients suffering from Alzheimer's and related disorders can benefit from programs and treatment conducted in separate units, or while comingled with other patients, particularly in the early and middle phases of the disease. In the later phase of the disease it may be less disruptive to other patients if Alzheimer patients reside in a separate wing or unit of the nursing home. Quality care can be rendered through separate or integrated programming, and all applicants in this case that propose to offer specialized services to these patients have proposed programs and facility designs which will provide quality care to persons with Alzheimer's and related disorders. While there are differences in facility design, such as the two-story construction of Manor-Sarasota compared with the single level construction of all other applicants, and the central heating and cooling proposed by Sisters compared with individual wall units to be used by Sarasota Healthcare, the proposed designs of all applicants allow for the rendering of quality care to patients. Access for Chronically Underserved The Health Quest proposal is inconsistent with the Local Health Plan policy that 33 1/3 percent of all nursing home beds should be dedicated for Medicaid patients since it proposes that only 5 of its 60 beds (8 percent) will be certified for Medicaid patients if CON 5046 is approved. Although Medicaid utilization at Manor-Sarasota has not been consistent with the Local Health Plan, it is projected that if CON 5050 is approved Medicaid utilization will rise to 40 percent. Sarasota Healthcare, HCR and Sisters propose to meet or exceed this Local Health Plan policy. HCR has experienced a 75-80 percent Medicaid utilization at Kensington Manor, and proposes a 45 percent Medicaid level in the new addition if CON 5049 is approved. Financial Feasibility The proposals of Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters are financially feasible. Health Quest did not file a pro forma and has not shown a profit in its year and a half of operation at Regents Park. Based upon its actual per patient operating expense at Pinebrook Place, Sarasota Healthcare has underestimated expenses in its second year of operation by approximately $8 per patient day. Its projection of a profit in the second year of operation is questionable due to this underestimation. Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters have established their ability to finance, through equity and debt, the construction, equipment, supplies, and start-up costs associated with their proposals. Health Quest will have no construction costs, and only very minor costs to equip and supply seven new beds it is requesting. The entire financial structure of CSI and Sarasota Healthcare is dependent upon the financial strength of their general partners, the Kelletts, who currently have $76 million in long term debt and $12 million in equity. This is a relatively high debt to equity ratio of 6 to 1 which makes them susceptible to adverse impacts from any downturn in the economy, especially since they have 15 additional CON applications pending in Florida, totaling $60 million in construction costs. In contrast to the Kelletts' high debt to equity ratio, Sisters have $159 million in long term debt and $160 million in equity for a very secure 1 to 1 debt to equity ratio. Projections of revenue and expense, as well as assumptions concerning projected utilization, Medicaid and Medicare rates, private pay rates, and patient mix used by Manor-Sarasota, HCR and Sisters in their pro forma are reasonable, based upon that applicant's experience and the services proposed in their applications at issue. Adequacy of Staffing All proposals have adequate and reasonable staffing patterns, as well as staff training programs, to insure that quality care is provided. Proposed salaries are reasonable and will allow qualified staff to be hired, based upon the recruiting experience and salaries currently offered by Sarasota nursing homes. Adequate staff resources exist in the area. I. Most Effective and Less Costly Alternative Since it is generally not necessary to construct support areas for storage, laundry, kitchen and administration, adding additional beds to existing facilities is a less costly alternative to an entirely new facility. Health Quest, HCR and Manor-Sarasota are, therefore, less costly per bed than Sarasota Healthcare and Sisters' proposals to construct new 120 bed nursing homes. Specifically, there are only minor costs associated with Health Quest's proposal, while the cost per bed of the Manor-Sarasota and HCR proposals are $30,872 and $30,030, respectively, compared with $32,500 per bed for Sarasota Healthcare and $55,295 for Sisters. Health Quest's application is the least costly alternative since it involves no construction costs to add seven beds to the existing 53 sheltered beds which would be converted to community nursing home beds, although minor costs for equipping seven new beds would be incurred. Effect on Costs and Charges Sisters and Health Quest have proposed, or actually experienced, the highest costs and charges of all applicants. Health Quest has not shown any basis upon which it can be reasonably expected that room rates will decrease, as it asserts, if this CON is approved. Due to the large size of its proposed building, higher food costs and number of staff, Sisters projects the highest operating expense per patient day in the second year of operation. Sisters will provide almost 500 gross square feet per bed, while Manor-Sarasota, HCR, and Sarasota Healthcare will provide 278, 267 and 314 gross square feet per bed, respectively. Enhanced Competition Since the other applicants are already represented in the service area, the approval of Sisters' application would enhance competition by adding another provider to Sarasota County. This will provide more choices to nursing home residents, and should increase the quality of long term care in the community with the added emphasis this proposal will place on rehabilitative programming. Costs and Methods of Construction The costs and methods of construction proposed by the applicants are reasonable, as well as energy efficient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a Final Order, as follows: Approving HCR's application for CON 5049; Approving Sisters' application for CON 5039; Denying the application of Manor-Sarasota, Sarasota Healthcare and Health Quest for CONs 5050, 5025 and 5046, respectively. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 9th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3471, 87-3473, 87-3475, 87-3478 and 87-3491 Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30, 37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. 3-4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 42. 6-10. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary since the parties have stipulated to need. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26, 27, 55, 69, 70. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 56, 58, 60. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55. Rejected as irrelevant since the parties have stipulated to need. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 57. Rulings on Manor-Sarasota's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32. Rejected in Finding of Fact 17 and Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 5, 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14 but Rejected in Findings of Fact 71, 73. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 35, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding or Fact 2. Rejected as unsupported and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61 but also Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 60. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 60, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but otherwise Rejected as unsupported argument on the evidence, without any citation to the record, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 82 but Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 33. Rejected as unsupported by the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 64 in part, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64 and as not supported by the record. Rejected as unnecessary and without citation to the record. Adopted and. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected in Findings of Fact 33, 63. Rejected in Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20, 71. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 33-34. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 35-36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as speculative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 41-43. Rejected as not supported by the record and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 81. Adopted in Findings of Fact 71, 75. 56-57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 55, 56. 59-61. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 76. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact l. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81 but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on HCR's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. 3-4. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 6-7. Rejected as unnecessary. 8-9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 10-15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 27, 55. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23, 28, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 27, 28. 24-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 26-27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 28-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 46-49. 31-37. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. 40-42. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25, 26, 71, 75. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as unnecessary. 45-46. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 79. 51-54. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 24, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 56-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 18, 42. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 55. Adopted in Findings of Fact 21, 49, 51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. 69-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 56. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 34. Rulings on Sisters' Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 43. Rejected as unnecessary as a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38. 11-12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. 13-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 47-54. Rejected as unnecessary and not supported by the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 18-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. 24-26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 30, but otherwise Rejected as argument unsupported by any citation to the record. 30-38. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. Rejected in Finding of Fact 40. 41-51. Adopted in Findings of fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as argument on the evidence rather than a Finding of Fact. 52-58. Adopted in Findings of Fact 29, 60, 61, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 59. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. 60-75. Rejected as unnecessary irrelevant, and cumulative. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Findings of Fact 33, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. 82-83. Rejected as unnecessary. 84. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 85-86. Rejected as unnecessary. 87-88. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 41. 89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as not supported by the record. 90-91. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63 and otherwise not supported by the record. 92-105. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, cumulative and irrelevant. Rejected as unsupported in the record and otherwise unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and speculative. Rejected as unnecessary. 111-112. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 113. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. 114-115. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 116-120. Adopted in Findings of Fact 60, 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 121. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 122-123. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative. 124. Adopted in Findings of Fact 31, 34, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported in the record. 125-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. 127-129. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant since no applicant has locked in interest rates, and therefore these rates will vary and are speculative. Rejected as speculative and irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. 132-135. Adopted in Finding of Fact 73. 136. Adopted in Finding of Fact 74. 137-139. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 140. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 141-145. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. 146-147. Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 71, 84, but Rejected in Findings of Fact 81, 82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Rejected as cumulative and unsupported by the record. 155-158. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. 159. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Sarasota Healthcare's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 12, 17, 19, 24, 30. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 37, 38, 43. 4-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 7-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12-16, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 14-17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 46. Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11, 61. 22-23. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 24-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 14, 57, but otherwise. Rejected in Finding of Fact 83 and as unsupported in the record. Rejected in Finding of Fact 54, and otherwise as irrelevant. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 51, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 57. 47-49. Adopted in Findings of Fact 56, 66. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. 53-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 81. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 65-78. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 79-85. Adopted in Findings of Fact 76, 77, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 86-97. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted and. Rejected in Finding of Fact 64. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 101-103. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 84. 104. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 105-109. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 84, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 16, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 73. 112-116. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 71, 73, 75, but otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 118-119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 75. 120-121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. 122-126. Adopted in Finding of Fact 40. 127-128. Adopted in Findings of Fact 30, 32. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted and Rejected in Finding of Fact 67. 133-135. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 33, 63, and otherwise. Rejected as irrelevant since all licensure requirements can easily be met with minor modifications. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15, 30, 32, 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31, but otherwise Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 140-142. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 51. 145-146. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 147-148. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30, but Rejected in Finding of Fact 57 and as unsupported in the record. 149-150. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 57. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative 153-156. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76, 77 and otherwise not supported in the record. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact s. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 71, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51. Rulings on Health Quest's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30. 6-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 37. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 42, 43. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as speculative and unsupported in the record. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Rejected in Finding of Fact 71. Rejected as irrelevant. 27-34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 63, 76, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 35-39. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. 40. Adopted in Finding of Fact 66. 41-58. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 61, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as simply a statement on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact and otherwise irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. 62-63. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding of Fact 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 80. 68-70. Adopted in Finding of Fact 63, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 71. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. 72-74. Rejected in Findings of Fact 48, 49, 51 and otherwise as irrelevant. 75-76. Rejected as unnecessary, although it is agreed that these matters are irrelevant and speculative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 63, 80. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 81-82. Adopted in Finding of Fact 39. 83. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 84-88. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as legal argument rather than a proposed finding of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. 92-94. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 95. Adopted and. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 41. 96-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 63, 76 and otherwise as irrelevant. 102. Rejected as cumulative. 103-104. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony. 107-109. Rejected in Finding of Fact 63. 110-111. Rejected as unsupported in the record and irrelevant. 112-114. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9, but otherwise Rejected as unsupported by the record. 115. Adopted in Finding of Fact 41. 116-117. Rejected as unnecessary. 118-120. Rejected in Finding of Fact 66 and otherwise simply as a summation of testimony. 121-122. Rejected as irrelevant and as argument on the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 38. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. 125-127. Rejected as argument on the evidence and as a summation of testimony. 128. Rejected as cumulative. 129-131. Rejected as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. 132-134. Rejected in Findings of Fact 61, 63 and otherwise as irrelevant. 135. Rejected in Findings of Fact 43, 48, 57 and otherwise as irrelevant. 136-142. Rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is not the accuracy of the SAAR, but rather whether applicants have sustained their burden of establishing entitlement to a CON based on the record established at hearing. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of HRS 2727 Mahan Drive, 3rd Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House - Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Watkins, Esquire Harry F. X. Purnell, Esquire Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Byron B. Matthews, Jr., Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire 700 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-2802 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency responsible for the administration of certificate of need ("CON") laws. In this case, AHCA projected a need for an additional 295 community nursing home beds in District 3 for the July 1996 planning horizon, and reviewed the applications submitted in response to the published need. A numeric need for 186 beds remains. CON applications are evaluated according to applicable statutory and rule criteria and, as required by Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the preferences and factors in the state and local health plans. The applicable state plan is Toward A Healthier Future - The 1993 State Health Plan. The applicable local health plan is the District Three Health Plan for 1992, with 1993 Allocation Factors, prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council in Gainesville. AHCA has not promulgated a rule subdividing District 3. However, the local planning council has divided the sixteen counties into nursing home planning areas, as follows: Columbia, Hamilton, Suwannee, Bradford, Union and Lafayette Counties; Alachua, Dixie, Gilchrist, and Levy Counties; Putnam County; Marion County; Citrus County; Hernando County; Lake and Sumter Counties. In this case, one applicant, Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., ("Dixie") proposes to locate in Dixie County in planning area 2 or (b). Hilliard HealthCare, Inc., ("Hilliard"), Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., ("Unicare"), Life Care Centers of America, Inc., ("Life Care") and Beverly Enterprises- Florida, Inc., ("Beverly") propose to construct nursing homes in planning area 7 or (g). Within planning area 7, Hilliard would build a nursing home in Sumter County, while Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly would build in Lake County. The total population in planning area 2 is approximately 230,000, and in planning area 7, approximately 180,000. More relevant to a determination of need for a nursing home, the population age 65 and over in planning area 2 is approximately 25,000, as compared to 49,000 in planning area 7. Within planning area 2, the projected Dixie County population over 65 in the year 2000 is 2,211, while the Sumter County projection is 9,824 residents. The actual 1994 population age 75 and over was 644 in Dixie, and 3,296 in Sumter County, and over 20,000 in Lake County. Currently, there are 1,238 licensed and approved beds in planning area 2, and 1,391 in planning area 7. For planning area 2, which includes Dixie County, there are 22 people age 65 and over for each nursing home bed. In planning area 7, the ratio is 41.1 to one. If 120 beds are added in Lake County, the comparable county ratio will decrease from 41.4 to 37.6 persons 65 and over to a bed. The addition of 60 beds in Sumter County will result in a decline in the county from 39.5 to ratio of 30.7 to 1. The district-wide ratio for District 3 is 34.5 persons 65 and over for every nursing home bed. The local planning council has compared the relative need for nursing home beds by planning area, according to a Planning Area Nursing Home Bed Allocation Matrix ("PANHAM"). Using a comparison of the percent of population age 75 and over to the percent of district beds in each planning area, the local health council describes planning area 7 as high need/moderate occupancy. It is ranked the planning area of greatest need for this CON application cycle. Planning area 2 is described as an area of low need/high occupancy. It also ranked as an area of priority in this cycle, although lower than planning area 7. The local health council has adopted three factors for use in making more specific determinations of locations which will best meet unmet needs within a planning area. Ranked in order of priority, the factors are: the absence of nursing homes in the same county, a location more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from any other nursing home, and an area in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months or 95 percent for the most recent six months. There is no evidence that construction of new nursing home beds is not needed or that the need is based on any inefficiency or quality of care problems in existing nursing homes. Consideration of the availability, utilization, and adequacy of other nursing homes and alternative health care providers in the district is also mandated by statute. See, e.g. Subsections 408.035(1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c), and (2)(d), Florida Statutes. In this group of applicants, only Dixie is favored by the first local health council factor for proposing to locate in a county in which there are no existing or approved nursing homes. Dixie does not meet the preference for a location more than 20 miles or a 25 minute drive from the closest nursing home. Dixie's expert witness who believed the drive took more than 25 minutes lacked direct knowledge of the road conditions. By contrast, the deposition testimony of the administrator of Tri-County Nursing Home established that the drive from Tri-County to Cross City takes about 15 minutes, most of it on a four lane highway, U.S. 27. Tri-County in Wilcox near Fanning Springs, and Medic-Ayers in Trenton are both within 20 miles or 25 minutes drive of the proposed Dixie site. Their occupancy rates for the first six months of 1993 were 94.41 percent and 95.85 percent, respectively, or an average of 95.13 percent. Therefore, Dixie is extremely close to meeting the local allocation factor related to existing nursing home occupancies in excess of 95 percent for the January-June 1993. By contrast, there are 12 existing and approved nursing homes in Lake County, and one in Sumter County. Occupancy rates in Lake County averaged 91.7 percent, but the facility in Sumter County reported 99.13 percent occupancy in the 1992-1993 reporting period. Applicants in Lake and Sumter Counties are not favored for proposing locations in counties without nursing homes, or for locations more than 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing nursing homes. Lake County applicants also do not meet the preference for an area defined by a 20-mile radius in which average occupancy rates exceeded 95 percent for the most recent six months or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. The Sumter County applicant, Hilliard, does meet the occupancy requirement for a location in which nursing homes within a 20 mile radius exceeded 90 percent occupancy for the most recent twelve months. Because the state rule methodology results in a positive need calculation, the local health council factor related to special circumstances in the absence of numeric need is inapplicable to this case. Dixie Health Care Center, L.P., Cross City, Dixie County Dixie is seeking AHCA's issuance of CON 7492 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Cross City, Dixie County, which is in planning area 2. If issued a CON, Dixie offers to be bound by the following conditions: to construct the nursing home on a specific site in Cross City; to provide 80 percent of its total resident days to Medicaid-reimbursed residents by the second year, with all beds certified for Medicaid and 9 beds certified for Medicare reimbursement; to provide rehabilitative, respite, and adult day care, with transportation for some day care participants; and not to deny HIV+ admissions. At the time that Dixie filed the letter of intent for the 60-bed project in Dixie County, it also submitted three others for contiguous areas of District 3. Thus, four legal notices, for projects in Alachua, Gilchrist, Levy and Dixie Counties were submitted by fax and then by mail to the Gainesville Sun newspaper for publication. All four legal notices, when published, referred to Levy County, as the proposed location of the nursing home. The proof of publication sent by the newspaper to the applicant and included in the CON application states that the notice published was for Dixie County, although the notice itself states that the project will be in Levy County. Dixie's health care planning expert requested the publication of a corrected notice, but there is no evidence that one ever appeared in the newspaper. AHCA accepts CON applications, despite publication errors, if the error is made by a newspaper, not by the applicant. Dixie is a partnership formed to file the application for CON 7492. The project will be funded by Smith/Packett Med-Com, Inc. Smith/Packett is owned by James R. Smith, who with Herbert H. Frazier, is a general partner in Dixie Health Care Center, Limited Partnership. Herbert Frazier is an employee of a Florida licensed general contractor, MB Conn Construction, and president of its Frazier Division which oversees the construction of nursing homes. Separately, the two general partners in Dixie own over 20 nursing homes, and jointly own one in Virginia and one in North Carolina. The partners owned, but, in February 1994, sold a Lake City nursing home. The estimated total project cost is approximately $3,000,000, of which the general partners will provide $250,000 in cash for project development costs and initial cash flow requirements, as noted in the application in the schedule 3 assumptions. Dixie included in its application a letter of interest in financing the project from Colonial Bank, Alabama. Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site for the project for $33,000. As previously noted, Dixie meets the highest priority local allocation factor for proposing to locate in a county which has no nursing homes, and is close to the factor for over 95 percent average occupancy rates in the nearest nursing homes. Dixie is also favored by the local plan for proposing to construct at least 60 beds, for improving access within the planning area, and for proposing respite care, adult day care, and rehabilitative therapies. Dixie meets state health plan preferences for proposing the following: to locate in a subdistrict with over 90 percent occupancy (93.42 percent for plan- ning area 2); to serve 80 percent Medicaid, which is in excess of the subdistrict average of 79.37 percent in the first six months of 1993, for specialized services to AIDS, Alzheimers' and mentally ill patients, to provide a continuum of services including long term, respite, and adult day care; to construct a well-designed facility to maximize resident comfort and quality or care, which is a reasonable size and meets all licensure requirements; to provide rehabilitative and restorative therapies, to establish a Medicaid reimbursement rate of $91.75 in year one and $94.65 in year two, as compared to the projected subdistrict high of $92.83 in 1995 and $96.54 in 1996 (using an annual 4 percent inflation rate from the January 1994 rate); * * * to offer multi-disciplinary services to residents, with the various therapist, social workers, and counselors; to document protection for residents rights and privacy, and to establish resident's councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs, as SunQuest and all other nursing homes operating in Florida must do by state laws; to operate with lower administrative costs and higher patient care costs than the average in the district ($21.61 and $51.33 respectively in year two (1996), in contrast to $22.02 and $41.62 in 1992 for the respective average district per diem costs); Questions were raised about Dixie's compliance with state factors (8) for providing superior resident care in existing facilities, and (9) for staffing ratios which exceed minimum state requirements and are appropriate for proposed special services. The proposal is substantially based on the assumption that the applicant will contract with SunQuest for management services. Although the application refers to a management contract with SunQuest, no contract has been executed, which is not unusual prior to the issuance of a CON. At the final hearing, however, Dixie contended that SunQuest is only one of the candidates for a management contract, while conceding that the management policies and procedures in its application are those of SunQuest. In fact, the Dixie application states in response to state allocation factor (9) that SunQuest will be the management company. SunQuest manages 10 and leases an additional 10 long term care facilities in the United States, two in Florida. One of the Florida nursing homes, Bayshore Convalescent Center in North Miami Beach, has a superior license. SunQuest also manages the Lake City Extended Care Center, which was built by the company which employs Mr. Frazier, began accepting residents in December 1993, and was sold by the Dixie general partners in approximately February 1994. The original holder of the Lake City CON became unable to develop the proposal and contacted Mr. Smith and Mr. Frazier just prior to the expiration of the CON. They acquired the CON, financed, designed, and constructed the nursing home. Lake City currently operates with a conditional license, as a result of medical record-keeping deficiencies. The testimony, by Dixie's corporate representative, that SunQuest is merely one management company candidate along with Senior Care Properties, is inconsistent with the totality of the proposal, which renders significantly less reliable the program descriptions in the original application. Dixie's intent to provide van transportation for adult day care participants was also questioned, due to the absence of any provision for the service in the financial schedules to the application. The financial feasibility of Dixie's proposal is also a matter at issue. Although Dixie has a contract to purchase a two acre site, the architect who designed the facility testified he had constructed a 120-bed two-story nursing home on less than two acres, but that two and a half to three acres are generally needed to construct a 60-bed facility. Dixie projected a net loss of $201,813 in the first year of operation and a net profit of $55,123 by the end of the second year. The general partners have committed to provide $250,000 to cover the first year negative cash flow. However, the average annual salaries projected when multiplied by number of full time equivalent ("F.T.E.") positions listed on schedule 6 of its application exceeds salaries listed in the projected income and expenses on schedule 11 by approximately $219,866 in year one and $51,694 in year two. Including the underestimate of related benefits, the loss expected in the second year is $8,759. Dixie maintains that the staffing on schedule 6 cannot be compared to the pro forma, because the staffing and related expenses in the pro forma will increase over the first year as the census increases, while the staffing schedule is a snapshot at the end of the first year. The same is not true for the second year, since the facility is projected to be full after 8 months. Dixie's expert on finance described the second year discrepancy between a $50,000 profit and an $8,700 loss as insignificant in determining the financial viability of a $2 million project which, taking into consideration depreciation, amortization, and noncash related items, still results in a positive cash flow. Dixie's financial feasibility also depends on its reaching 96 percent occupancy by the fourth quarter of the first year. One witness for Dixie has achieved 93 percent occupancy in similar facilities in a county he deemed comparable, but has operated his facilities since 1989. Dixie also has to contend with competition for residents and staff from a relatively new facility within 20 miles and a 25 minute drive, Tri-County Nursing Home. Tri-County Nursing Home in Gilchrist County opened in May 1992, close to the Gilchrist- Dixie line, serving residents of Levy, Gilchrist and Dixie Counties. Approximately 30 of its 60 beds are occupied by Dixie County residents, all of whom rely on Medicaid reimbursement. Tri-County is also establishing a 25 person adult day care, having completed the required state inspection and awaiting the issuance of its license. After 8 months of operation, 51 of the 60 beds were filled. In June of 1993, Tri-County was full, with 98 percent occupancy. Approximately 40 percent of Tri-County's staff resides in Dixie County. There was testimony that 41 registered nurses reside in Dixie County, but with no information concerning their distribution within the county, current employment, or ages, their availability to work at a new nursing home could not be evaluated. In Gilchrist County, the ratio of persons 65 and over to nursing home beds is 8.7 to 1, in contrast to 31.46 for Levy County, and 34.5 for the district. The data supports the conclusion that Tri-County relies on service to Dixie County residents, clearly has an insufficient population base within Gilchrist County to fill its beds, and even when combined with Levy County is below the district ratio of 34.5 persons over 65 per nursing home bed. AHCA's expert in health planning and nursing home financial feasibility testified that Tri-County has had financial difficulties. On balance, Dixie has failed to demonstrate that it has estimated reasonable land requirements and costs, and that it can meet the required occupancy and staffing levels to survive financially, without adversely affecting Tri-County. Hilliard Healthcare, Inc., Bushnell, Sumter County Hilliard is the applicant for CON 7485 to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Bushnell, Sumter County, which is in planning area 7. Hilliard's CON, if issued, will commit to construction of Osprey Point Nursing Center on a specific five acre site on State Road 475, and to the establishment of a 10-bed Medicare unit, and a 20-bed secure Alzheimers' unit, with all beds Medicare and Medicaid certified. Hilliard commits to providing 64 percent of total resident days for Medicaid. The total estimated project cost is $2,650,000, funded by $650,000 cash from stockholders and $2,000,000 in loans from Bankers First. Hilliard, formed in 1987, currently owns a superior licensed 120-bed facility in Nassau County, having completed a 60-bed expansion in September 1994. The Nassau County nursing home is managed by Health Care Managers ("HCM"), which is owned by Steven Sell, Hilliard's president and founder. Mr. Sell, in partnership with three others, first acquired a 55-bed facility in Jacksonville in 1984, expanded it to 120 beds in 1988, and sold it in 1994 for a profit of approximately $2.5 million. In 1991, Hilliard's president also received a CON to construct a 60-bed nursing home in Clay County, which was sold without a profit, but at a break-even point, while it was under construction. HCM is the intended manager of the Bushnell facility, if the CON is approved. Hilliard submitted a notice of its intent to file a CON application to the Sumter County Times newspaper for publication. The notice, published in November of 1993, stated erroneously that the application would be filed on December 1, 1992, rather than December 1, 1993. Hilliard's president testified that he knows for a fact that he submitted the notice with the correct date, but no document in evidence establishes what Hilliard submitted to the Sumter County Times. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the local health council factors for a location in a county without nursing homes, nor is Bushnell more than a 20 mile radius or 25 minute drive from existing nursing homes. It does merit consideration under the factor which relates to the occupancy of nursing homes within a 20 mile radius, all of which exceeded 90 percent from July 1992 - June 1993, ranging from 90.89 to 99.13 percent. The highest rate was at WeCare, the only other nursing home in Sumter County, which is located in Wildwood, in the northern area of Sumter County. WeCare has two fifteen-bed Alzheimers' units, and unchallenged CON approval to add 30 beds. The approval of the 30 additional beds at WeCare raises the bed to population ratio of Sumter County from 20.2 to 23.5 per 1000, in contrast to the current Lake County ratios of 22.4. With the approval of 60 beds at Hilliard and another 120 beds in Lake County, the ratios are increased to 30.2 in Sumter and 24.7 in Lake County. After approval of WeCare's addition, the need in Sumter County has been decreased. Hilliard, by its proposal to serve central and southern sections of Sumter County, would improve access within the planning area. The occupancy rate for Medicare patients at WeCare was 1.1 percent. Hilliard contends that the relatively low percentage of Medicare services indicates a need for short-term, post-hospitalization rehabilitation services, as proposed in its 10-bed Medicare unit. Hilliard demonstrated that average lengths of hospital stays for Sumter County residents for certain procedures exceed national Medicare reimbursement averages, but there was no comparison to average lengths of stay within the district or the state. Other local health council allocation factors which apply to and favor Hilliard's proposal are those for: establishing a facility of at least 60 beds, improving access within a planning area with over 80 percent occupancy, and serving Alzheimers' and dementia patients. Hilliard's proposal meets state preferences for: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (95.42 percent for planning area 7); * * * providing specialized services to Alzheimers' residents; offering respite care (although limited to hospice services); designing a comfortable facility, with short corridor segments, relatively large therapy areas, and a separate enclosed courtyard for the Alzheimers' unit; proposing occupational, speech and physical therapies, particularly to enhance the functioning of Alzheimers' residents; setting Medicaid rates of $101.90 for 1996 and $104.13 for 1998, in contrast to the highest rates projected for the same time, $107.89 and $113.28, respectively (using 5 percent inflation); providing superior resident care at its existing Nassau County Nursing home; proposing staffing ratios in excess of minimum state requirements, with reasonable salaries; including multi-disciplinary staff, including occupational, speech, and physical therapists, as well as nurses and an activities director; protecting residents' rights and privacy, and developing quality assurance and discharge planning programs; and proposing lower administrative costs ($26.35) with higher patient care costs ($64.30) than the district average of $26.63 and $54.67, respectively (1977 projection with 5 percent inflation). Hilliard does not meet state preference 2 for service to Medicaid proportionate to the subdistrict average, which is 69.95 percent, in contrast to Hilliard's proposed commitment of 64 percent. Under the preference, Hilliard's proposal to emphasize Medicare reimbursed therapies does not relieve it of the obligation to serve a proportionate share of Medicaid. Hilliard's proposal does not meet the specific exceptions allowed in preference 2 for applicants proposing to serve particular ethnic or cultural groups, and those developing multi-level care systems. Hilliard has a commitment letter from Banker's First to provide a $2 million loan for a fee of 1 1/2 to 2 percent of the principal loan amount, or $30,000 to $40,000. In schedule 1 of the application Hilliard's estimate of closing costs in $10,000, with $4,120 in legal fees. Dixie's expert claimed that the closing cost was inconsistent with the Banker's First letter and unreasonably low. By contrast for a $3 million loan, Dixie estimated $10,000 for loan closing costs, $30,000 for legal fees, $10,000 for recording fees and taxes, and $60,000 in loan origination fees. Dixie's expert apparently overlooked an additional $20,000 in origination fees, which was included on Hilliard's schedule 1. Hilliard projects a loss of $177,000 in year one, and income from nursing home operations of $114,690 in year two. In the first year, a loan of $271,660 is expected to cover the losses in year one. In the second year, a pay off of $154,940 on the loan is expected. The financial ability of Hilliard's shareholders to provide the initial $650,000 equity contribution and $271,660 to cover first year losses was questioned. Hilliard's president noted that the shareholders previously raised in excess of $600,000 to develop the Nassau County facility and have received $2.5 million in profits from the sale of the Jacksonville nursing home. Personal financial statements of three of the six stockholders were included in Hilliard's application. The personal financial statements were incomplete, omitting referenced attachments. The statements were also inaccurate or inconsistent, with missing liabilities, discrepancies regarding property values, and including the total value of some property which was not owned by the shareholders individually. Nevertheless, the statements do, according to Dixie's expert, show that the shareholders could provide over $900,000 in capital needed for Hilliard to be financially feasible, although that would take virtually all of the liquid assets, unless they assumed some additional individual debts. On balance, Hilliard has shown that Sumter County is more likely than not in need of additional Medicare-reimbursed subacute services, and that its proposal is financially feasible based on the shareholders' history of being able to raise capital for similar development projects. Lake County Applicants Three applicants in this batch seek to construct new 115 or 120-bed nursing homes in Lake County. Given the remaining numeric need for 186 beds, only one of the applicants can be approved. See, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., et al. v. AHCA, et al., DOAH Case No. 92-6656 (F.O. 10/17/94). In addition, the District 3 Allocation Factors Report Preferences includes the following guideline: To the extent possible, all planning areas ranked in one of the four categories of priority established in subparagraph d above should be approved to add some new beds. Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., Lady Lake, Lake County Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") is an applicant for a CON to construct a 120-bed nursing home or to receive a partial award to construct a 115-bed community nursing home in the town of Lady Lake, in northwest Lake County. Unicare proposes to have its CON conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed Alzheimers' and related dementia unit, an adult day care to accommodate an additional 20 Alzheimers' sufferers for half day care, and on providing 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents. Unicare also plans to include a 10-bed subacute unit, and to offer rehabilitative therapies, respite and hospice care. The total size of the building is 58,700 square feet. Unicare is a subsidiary of United Health, Inc., which is committed to finance the project by providing an equity contribution of 60 percent and drawing on its available line of credit for the remaining 40 percent of the total projected cost of $5,754,983. Unicare owns and operates 45 nursing homes in 7 states, has been in business for 28 years and in Florida since 1982, and currently owns and operates 13 Florida nursing homes. Life Care Centers of America Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care") proposes to establish a 120-bed community nursing home of 53,175 square feet, in west central Lake County, in the areas of Lady Lake, Tavares, or Leesburg, for a total project cost of $5,906,000. Life Care's CON, if issued, will include its commitment to provide 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, to establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit, to offer adult day care services, and to include a 20-bed sub-acute unit. Life Care is a privately held company operating 150 nursing homes in 27 states. Life Care owns two and operates three other nursing homes in Florida. Life Care proposes to fund the Lake County nursing home from $206,000 cash-on-hand and $5,700,000 in financing from a non-related company. With its application, Life Care submitted letters of interest from potential lenders with interest rates ranging from 9 to 12 percent, and a 25 year amortization schedule. In reviewing other Life Care applications, AHCA has considered and rejected as incomplete a list of capital projects identical to that included in this Lake County application. Specifically, Life Care listed projects by county name, although the total amount of capital obligations, according to AHCA, was significantly underestimated. Life Care submitted, at hearing, its exhibit 6, a stipulation to certain facts and, through the testimony of its Vice President for Development, established that the facts related to the schedule 2 issues in this case are identical to those considered in Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. Agency For Health Care Administration, DOAH Case No. 94-2409 (F.O. 10/24/94), which is pending on appeal in the district court. Beverly Enterprises Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly") is a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Corporation-California, a subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in Lady Lake or Leesburg, in Lake County, with a commitment to provide 73 percent of total annual resident days for Medicaid, to establish a 20-bed Medicare-certified subacute unit with 4 beds for ventilator-dependent patients, an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, an adult day care for 8 clients, respite care, and to accept and care for residents who are HIV positive, or have mental health disorders. Beverly also will commit to donate $10,000 for gerontological research. Beverly Enterprises companies operate 720 nursing homes, 70 in Florida. Of the 70, 41 are operated by the applicant. Beverly's proposal to establish Lake Beverly Terrace has a total project cost of $5,421,372, for 48,969 square feet. Existing Nursing Home and Alternatives - Sections 408.035(1)(b), and (2), Florida Statutes. As of January 1994, there were 460 nursing home beds in Leesburg, 142 in Clermont, 236 in Mount Dora and 377 in Eustis. All of the facilities, exceeded the average Lake County occupancy of approximately 92 percent in 1992- 1993, except two, Waterman Hospital Extended Care Center in Eustis and Edgewater in Mount Dora. All of the parties agreed that additional subacute and Alzheimers' beds, and adult day care spaces are needed in Lake County. Local and State Health Plans - Sections 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Unicare, Life Care, and Beverly propose to locate in Lake County, within planning area 7 for Lake/Sumter Counties. The planning area has a higher priority need ranking than planning area 2, as determined by the local health plan council. Local allocation factors 1 - 5 apply equally, or are inapplicable to the three proposals. There are existing nursing homes in the county, which are within 20 miles or 25 minutes all of the proposed locations, and which exceeded 90 percent occupancy. Unicare distinguishes its proposal based on its intention to locate in the town of Lady Lake, rather than further contributing to the concentration of nursing homes in Leesburg. Lady Lake was, in 1990, the third largest municipality in Lake County, and projected to be the largest in 2000. The 1990- 2000 projected growth rate is over 100 percent, in contrast to 13 percent for Leesburg, 50 percent for Tavares, and 37 percent for the entire county. Lady Lake was also mentioned in the Life Care and Beverly applications as a possible location for their facility, along with other towns in Lake County. Beverly's Vice President has investigated the cost of sites only in Leesburg, Fruitland Park, and Eustis, but concedes that Leesburg is a desirable location due to its proximity to the hospital. Without a CON condition, which AHCA could impose, all three applicants could locate anywhere within Lake County. Although Lady Lake is only 8 miles from Leesburg, Unicare's proposal, all other factors being equal, would be favored as more consistent with local allocation factor 6, which discourages the concentration of nursing homes in one community within a multi- county planning area. The final local allocation factor, 7 (as related to Alzheimers' and adult day care), as well as state health plan factors 3 (as related to Alzheimers') and 4 (as related to adult day care), and subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes, favor applicants proposing specialized care or therapies to meet the needs of community and nursing home residents suffering from Alzheimers' and related forms of dementia. Unicare's 20-bed Alzheimers' unit and programs, and half day adult day care for 20 additional Alzheimers' sufferers are consistent with the specialized services that are needed. Life Care also proposes, as conditions for its CON, that it will establish a 20-bed Alzheimers/dementia unit and an adult day care center to accommodate 10 participants a day, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Beverly proposes to provide services in an 18-bed Alzheimers' wing, and an 8-person adult day care program. State health plan allocation factors met by all of the Lake County applicants include the following: locating in a subdistrict exceeding 90 percent occupancy (approximately 92 percent for planning area 7 for January-June 1993); see, also Subsection 408.035(1)(b), (d), and (2) (a) - (d); proposing to serve 73 percent Medicaid- reimbursed residents in comparison to the subdistrict average of 72.65 percent in the first six month of 1993; and * * * (11) documenting measures and procedures to protect resident's rights and privacy, and the use of resident councils, quality assurance and discharge planning programs. The Lake County applicants' proposals differ more when compared in accordance with state health plan factors and related statutory criteria, for: services to AIDS residents and the mentally ill; respite care, adult day care, and other services in a continuum of care (Sections 408.035(1)(o), F.S.); facilities with designs which maximize residents' comfort and the quality of care, and the costs and methods of construction (Sections 408.035(l)(m), F.S.); innovative therapeutic programs to enhance mental and physical functioning; charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict (Sections 408.035(2)(e), F.S.); a record of providing superior care in existing nursing homes (Sections 408.035)(1)(c), F.S.); staffing in excess of minimum requirements, with the highest ratio of registered and licensed practical nurses to residents (Sections 408.035)(1)(h), F.S. - availability of staff and personnel); use of professionals from a variety of disciplines; and * * * (12) administrative cost which are lower patient care costs which are higher than the district average. State health plan preference 3 is given to applicants for care to AIDS residents and the mentally ill, and state health plan 4, in part, applies to respite care. Beverly points to its increase in service to HIV positive patients from 39 patients for 124 patient days in 1993 to 3500 patient days in 1994. Unicare also has served AIDS residents. All of the Lake County applicants plan to offer respite care. Beverly offers a wider array of specialized services. By providing a range of levels of care to inpatients and outpatients, including adult day care and respite care, the applicants also, in part, meet the criterion of subsection 408.035(1)(o), Florida Statutes. Nursing homes with more features to enhance resident comfort and quality of care are given state health plan preference 5. Unicare's 58,720 square foot plan, includes semi-private patient rooms designed for the placement of the heads of residents' beds on opposite walls, each side with a window, rather than the alignment of beds next to each other, typical of semi-private hospital rooms. The plan includes indoor wandering space for Alzheimers' residents in a loop around an activity and recreation area, separated by a 3 to 4 foot wall. The Alzheimers' unit has a separate dining room with access to a secured courtyard, which, in turn, connects with the day care center. AHCA's architectural report notes that the construction cost of $60 per gross square foot is below the median cost projection, because Unicare will use a design/build contract. The design/build contract provides for one contractor to provide all of the services, including architectural and design, engineering and construction management, which saves time and money. Unicare's contractor, KM Development Corporation, has been in business since 1977, and has renovated and enlarged Unicare's facilities in Florida without cost overruns, and has done residential construction in the state. Unicare's design, based on the AHCA architectural review and the contractor's testimony, meets requirements for licensure and safety, and is a one-hour fire safety protected structure with a stucco finish, and brick and wood trim. Although skeptical and concerned that the design/build contract can be manipulated to cut corners to stay within budget, AHCA's expert in architecture testified that it is possible for Unicare to build the facility at the projected cost, but he would expect a cost over- run. Life Care's 53,175 square foot building will cost $75 a square foot. AHCA's architects described it as wings organized around a central courtyard, providing good visual control of short corridors. Life Care's design also includes a gift shop, library, and ice cream parlor. A separate wing for Alzheimers residents is adjacent to the adult day care center, with a separate dining room and courtyard. The institutional effect of corridors is decreased by using recessed entrances and doors to residents' rooms. There were no concerns expressed by architectural experts with the appropriateness of the design for the functions in each wing, the adequacy of the project cost, or the safety of the structure. Beverly's construction cost per gross square feet, listed as $63 on line I in response to question 4A was challenged as too low by Life Care's experts. Beverly's construction cost plus a 10 percent contingency or $70 a square foot for 48,969 square feet is considered reasonable by AHCA, although that eliminates the availability of the contingency for unknown conditions on an unselected site. Beverly's design is organized generally around a core area of courtyards with therapy space in the center. Beverly's Alzheimers' unit has a separate courtyard which allows wandering residents to exit a door near one end of the corridor and return by a door near the opposite end. AHCA's architectural review concludes that Beverly's design meets licensure and safety requirements. In general, Unicare's design better meets the preference for enhancing resident comfort and quality of care with rooms over 30 percent larger than required, four outside landscaped areas, physical therapy rooms, and three staff lounges, and an in-service training area, but its cost may be underestimated. Life Care's design is second in terms of accommodating program needs with space arrangements. Adult day care clients with Alzheimers, for example, are located adjacent to the area for Alzheimers residents' programs and activities. Life Care's projected construction costs are also the highest. Innovative therapeutic programs effective in enhancing physical and mental functions are favored in state health plan preference 6. Unicare will provide physical, occupational, and speech therapy and has developed special programs to serve Alzheimers's and related dementia residents and day care clients. Life Care and Beverly will offer IV therapy, wound care, and ventilator and respiratory therapy in addition to other therapies offered by Unicare. Beverly's therapy programs are more innovative and intense, based on the staffing and level of detail provided in describing the proposed services. Preference 7 is given for proposed charges not exceeding the highest Medicaid per diem in the subdistrict. Unicare proposes a Medicaid per diem rate for $86.57 for 120 beds in the second year while at least one provider in the subdistrict for 1997 will be charging $95.27. Unicare computed projected future rates by using 9.1 percent inflation of the Medicaid rate at one facility, which is not necessarily the highest existing provider, which results in a $98.44 rate. Unicare criticized Beverly's use of a 5 percent inflation rate of the highest current provider resulting in a projected rate of $99.47. The highest Medicaid rate in the district, inflated forward to 1997, was $99.31 at the time the application was submitted, so that Beverly's proposed charge of $99.00 is lower, as is Life Care's projected $97.11 and Unicare's $86.57. Preference 8 and subsection 408.035(1)(c) require a comparison of the applicants' records in terms of the quality of care provided in their existing nursing homes, as indicated partly by licensure ratings over the last 36 months. During that time, Unicare's 13 nursing homes have had 468 months of operation at approximately 63 percent superior, 29 percent standard, and 9 percent conditional. Beverly has had a total of 976 months of operations, 67 percent superior, 25 percent standard, and 7 percent conditional. Beverly has also paid a fine to the State of Oregon to settle claims related to patient care problems. The two Florida nursing homes owned by Life Care are rated standard, one in Citrus County opened in November, 1994 and is not yet eligible for a superior license. The other, in Altamonte Springs has been in operation for over 36 months, 29 of those with a superior licensure rating. The three applicants generally have operated and have the capacity to continue to operate superior facilities. Preference 9, on proposed staffing ratios and preference 10 related to the use of varied professional staff are also indications of the quality of care. AHCA requires one registered nurse on the day shift and none on the night shift in a 120-bed nursing home. All of the applicants exceed the minimum. The number of nursing hours per patient day will be 3.2 at Unicare, 3.35 at Life Care, and 3.85 at Beverly. One of four registered nurses on the day shift at Beverly will always be in the subacute unit. However, the ratio outside the unit, for the remaining 100 residents, still exceeds the minimum and meets the preference requirements. All three companies have existing Florida facilities available to provide training and, if needed, transfers of experienced staff to a new nursing home. They currently use and are proposing to continue to use professional staff from a variety of disciplines to meet residents' and clients' needs. Average administrative costs in the district, inflated forward, will be $24.58 and average patient care costs will be $49.49. The applicants report their comparable projections on Schedule 11. Unicare's projected costs are $27.80 and $50.59, respectively. Life Care's costs are $24.84 and $65.94, respectively. Beverly's are $24.44 and $62.30, respectively. With erroneously omitted laundry costs added to administrative costs, Beverly's administrative costs increase to $26.52. All three applicants propose higher administrative costs than the district average, but Life Care's are the lowest. All three have higher than average patient care costs, with Life Care favored as the highest. The following subsections of the CON statutory review criteria do not apply, in this case, to distinguishing among the Lake County applicants: - availability or adequacy of alternatives, such as outpatient care or home care; - economics of joint or shared resources; - need for equipment or services not accessible in adjoining areas; * * * - special needs of health maintenance organizations; - needs of entities which provide substantial services beyond the district; and - impacts on costs and effects of competition. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) - research and educational facilities needs Unicare and Life Care have established foundations to foster education and research in gerontology and health care. Beverly will commit, as a condition for the issuance of its CON, to providing a $10,000 research grant for a gerontological studies to Florida State University. All three companies assist in providing clinical experiences for nursing and therapy students in technical schools, community colleges, and universities, and benefit by recruiting employees from the programs. Subsection 408.035(1)(h) - availability of funds to establish and operate project, and Subsection 408.045(1)(i) - immediate and long-term financial feasibility Unicare has $5 million in available cash and a $30 million line of credit. Unicare, using costs from other facilities adjusted to take into consideration geographical differences, projects a net loss of $250,672 in the first year and a profit of $50,482 in the second year. Unicare failed to include $3,000 in housekeeping equipment in its projected expenses, but can more than cover that omission with a $75,000 contingency. Life Care had a net worth of $50 million in 1993. For calendar year 1992, its audited financial statement shows over $10 million in net earnings and $4.5 million in cash on hand. Life Care projects a net loss of $548,190 in year one and a net profit of $236,022 in year two. Beverly has access to over $200 million for project development, combining its cash, cash equivalents, commercial paper and lines of credit. Beverly projects a pre-tax loss of $314,000 in the first year and a net profit of $214,000 in the second year. Beverly's figures were questioned based on its use of the experience of a Tampa area facility to determine some costs and expenses, its assumption that Medicare will be 13 percent of its patient mix, and its projected lengths of stay and revenues from Medicare. Beverly's use of unit-costs from existing facilities with modifications to fit the specific proposal is reasonable. Although the district Medicare rate is 5.7 percent and Lake County's is 6.1 percent, Beverly's higher proportion of Medicare is consistent with the level of subacute services it proposes in 20 of its 120 beds. After the maximum of 100 days of Medicare coverage, Beverly will have weaned or will transfer ventilator patients who do not have private insurance. Subsection 408.035(1)(n) - past and proposed Medicaid participation Unicare has no nursing homes with CON conditions requiring a specified level of Medicaid participation, having purchased older, existing facilities in Florida. Nevertheless, eleven of its thirteen facilities exceed the Medicaid average in their respective subdistricts. For the first six months of 1993, Life Care's Medicaid resident days were 78 percent in Altamonte Springs (with no CON condition), 70 percent in Punta Gorda, 88 percent and 68 percent, respectively, in the two West Palm Beach nursing homes. Beverly's percent of patient days for Medicaid increased 63.3 percent to 66.8 percent from 1993 to 1994 for facilities in Florida. Beverly paid a $1500 fine to the state for falling below its Medicaid commitment in one of 17 state facilities with such conditions, Coral Trace in Lee County. AHCA agreed to reduce the Coral Trace medicaid condition from 78 percent to 53.3 percent to reflect the subdistrict average. In 1994, at Coral Trace, 49.5 percent of total patient days were Medicaid. All three Lake County applicants have demonstrated strong compliance with Medicaid participation criterion. Comparison of Lake County Applicants On balance, the Lake County applications are all more in compliance than not with statutory review criteria, with varying strengths and weaknesses. They are financially sound, experienced nursing home owners and operators. Unicare will improve access within the planning area. The demographic data on the municipality of Lady Lake shows significant growth. Unicare also will build a better designed and larger facility, and will focus its programs on meeting the needs of Alzheimers' residents and day care participants. Unicare's weaknesses are AHCA's architect's expectation that it will experience cost- overruns and the absence of ventilator services. Unicare relies on its actual experience with Florida construction projects to support the reasonableness of its projections. Unicare also projects the lowest Medicaid per diem rate. Life Care proposes to offer a wider range of specialized programs and therapies than Unicare, a design second to Unicare's in terms of size and residential amenities. Life Care's project costs are the highest of the Lake County applicants, but Life Care, when operational, will have the highest proportion of its costs applied to patient care. Beverly offers a range of programs comparable to those offered by Life Care, with greater emphasis on subacute care, and less emphasis than Unicare on Alzheimers' services. Beverly will build the smallest nursing home at the lowest cost, but is highest in projected Medicaid per diem rate. Unicare is recommended for CON approval due to its superior design, and superior Alzheimers' and day care services, and proposed location. Because the proposed location is a factor in Unicare's favor, it is recommended that Unicare's CON be conditioned on its obtaining a site in Lady Lake. Absent Unicare's agreement to a condition on location, Beverly is recommended for approval based primarily on its lower project cost, scope and intensity of subacute of services, and higher staffing levels.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that AHCA issue CON No. 7489 to Unicare to construct a 120-bed community nursing home in District III, conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed unit for residents with Alzheimers and related dementia and an adult day care providing half day care for 20 clients, the provision of 73 percent of total resident days to Medicaid residents, and the selection of a site for the facility in the municipality of Lady Lake, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 9th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASES NOs. 94-2452, 94-2453, 94-2462, 94-2467 and 94-2971 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Dixie's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7-9 and 14. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 15-19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 7, rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted first sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected second sentence in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9. Rejected in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 13. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-19. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. 28-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 25. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 33-34. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8 and 22. 35-36. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 40-41. Accepted in part in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 42-46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 35. 47. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 22. 48-49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. 50. Rejected in Findings of Fact 23. 51-52. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21-23. 53-54. Accepted. 55-57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 62-63. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and 9. 70-76. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 77-78. Accepted in Findings of Fact 26. 79-80. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12. Petitioner, Life Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2-4. 3-4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. Accepted, except 6, in Findings of Fact 51-53. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 56-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 58. 11. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 8-10 and 51-53. 12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. 14. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 15. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 52. 16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 71. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-67. 18. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 19. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 20. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. 21. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 59. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 32-34. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 68. 36-38. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. 43-44. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 45-53. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70. 56-59. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 61-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. 66-67. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Petitioner, Hilliard Health Care's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 3-4. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 8-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted. 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3, 4 and 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28 and 31. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16, 24 and 30. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11, 15 and 22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. 31-34. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 17-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 17-19. 37-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. 48-49. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7. Rejected as "lowest need" in Findings of Fact 7. 52-61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 22. 62-65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 14-16 and 23. Accepted. Rejected in Findings of Fact 8. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-9 and 24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 25. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected as not at issue. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 30. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 30. 80-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 31-36. Rejected except first sentence in Findings of Fact 21. Rejected in Findings of Fact 21. 88-91. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-22. 92. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 13. 2-6. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11. 7. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12. 8-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47-49. 10-12. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39-41. 13-16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-26. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 42-44. Accepted. 20-23. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4-9. 24. Accepted. 25-26. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15. 27-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 24-30 and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15, 31, and 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15, 30 and 55. 33-35. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 16-19. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 39-40. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 61. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 47 and 56. 46-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. 51-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 21 and 23. 53-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13. 56. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22. 57-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15 and 21. 59. Rejected in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. 60-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 49 and 70. 65-66. Rejected in Findings of Fact 70 and in conclusions of law 76. 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 68-69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 15. 70-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60, except "probable" in last sentence of proposed findings of fact 74. (See, T-p 2197.) Accepted in Findings of Fact 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 31. Petitioner/Respondent, Beverly's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1 and 37. Accepted in preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 43. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Accepted in Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 37 and 50. 16-17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. Rejected in general in Findings of Fact 52. 20,22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 51 and 54. 23-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 39, 42 and 47. 25 Accepted in Findings of Fact 39, 42, 47 and 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in Findings of Fact 56. 28-29. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 59 and 60. 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 62, 63 and 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Rejected as speculative. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in general except conclusion in Findings of Fact 66. 40-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Rejected conclusion in Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66 and 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 54-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 56-58. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Rejected, as irrelevant based on previous interpretations by AHCA, in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 62-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57-60. 65-66. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. 67. Accepted, but list not construed as exclusive in Findings of Fact 56. 68-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in preliminary statement and subordinate to Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Petitioner, Unicare's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 37 and 39. 2-3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40, 41, and 66. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1. 7-8. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-8 and 51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 39. 12-13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 14-16. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 52. 17. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. 18-22. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 71. Accepted. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 26-27. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. 31-32. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. Accepted in Findings of Fact 66. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 36-39. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53. 40-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 69. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 44-48. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39 and 61. 49-52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 53 and 56. 53-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 63-68. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 70. 71-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 51. 76-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 52. 79. Accepted in Findings of Fact 53. 80-81. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. 82-83. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 56. 84. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57 and 60. 85-86. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in Findings of Fact 65. 89-90. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54. Accepted in Findings of Fact 67. 93-94. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 57, 59 and 60. 95. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 70. 96-103. Rejected as having been modified and adjusted in Findings of Fact 70. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Rejected in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 67. Rejected in Findings of Fact 66 and 67. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 65. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57-60. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 42. Rejected as not supported by the record. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45 and 46. Accepted in Findings of Fact 64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Accepted in Findings of Fact 61. Accepted in Findings of Fact 57. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Jay Adams, Esquire Broad & Cassel Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Cobb, Cole & Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. David Watkins, Esquire Patricia Renovitch, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire Pennington, Haben, Wilkinson,Culpepper, Dunlap, Dunbar, Richmond & French, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tom Wallace Assistant Director Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County?
Findings Of Fact HCR is a health care corporation. Its sole business is designing and constructing nursing homes. During the twenty years it has been in the business, HCR has built approximately 180 nursing homes. HCR currently operates approximately 10,000 nursing home beds in twelve states including Florida. HCR filed an application for a certificate of need to construct a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County. The Department denied this request. The only issue in this case is whether there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home facility in Manatee County. If such a need exists, the Department has agreed that HCR "meets all applicable statutory and rule criteria." The need for nursing home beds is determined under Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10-5.11(21)(a), Florida Administrative Code, contains the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds calculated by the methodology described in subsections (21)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this rule. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides for a determination of bed need three years into the future "according to the methodology specified under subparagraphs 1 through 10." Under the methodology provided in subparagraphs 1 through 10, need is determined on a subdistrict basis if a departmental service district has been divided into subdistricts. Manatee County is located in District 6. District 6 has been divided into subdistricts for purposes of determining nursing home bed need. Manatee County has been designated as a subdistrict. Rule 10-17.018, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, nursing home bed need is to be determined under the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code, for Manatee County. The parties have agreed and the evidence proves that there is no need for nursing home beds in Manatee County based upon an application of the methodology of Rule 10-5.11(21), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). In fact, an application of the Formula indicates that there will be an excess of 105 nursing home beds in Manatee County three years into the future based upon the following: 876 nursing home beds needed - (765 existing beds + 90 percent of 240 approved beds) = (105). Based upon an application of the Formula, there is clearly no need for any additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. This determination, however, does not totally resolve the issue in this case. Rule 10-5.11(21)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department is to determine bed need according to the Formula "[i] n addition to other statutory and rule criteria . . . " Also, Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part, the following: In the event that the net bed allocation is zero, the applicant may demonstrate that circumstances exist to justify the approval of additional beds under the other relevant criteria specifically contained in the Department's Rule 10-5.11. Based upon these provisions of the Department's rules, it appears clear that if no nursing home bed need is shown to exist based upon an application of the Formula, other statutory and rule criteria should be considered, i.e., are there adequate like and existing services in the subdistrict? Rule 10-5.11(21)(b)10, Florida Administrative Code, however, goes on to provide: Specifically, the applicant may show that persons using existing and like services are in need of nursing home care but will be unable to access nursing home services currently licensed or approved within the subdistrict. Under this provision, the applicant must demonstrate that those persons with a documented need for nursing home services have been denied access to currently licensed but unoccupied beds or that the number of persons with a documented need exceeds the number of licensed, unoccupied and currently approved nursing home beds. Existing and like services shall include the following as defined in statute or rule, adult congregate living facilities, adult foster homes, homes for special services, home health services, adult day health care, adult day care, community care for the elderly, and home care for the elderly. Patients' need for nursing home care must be documented by the attending physicians' plans of care or orders, assessments performed by staff of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, or equivalent assessments performed by attending physicians indicating need for nursing home care. As discussed under the Conclusions of Law, infra, this portion of the Department's rule (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Exception") is not the only alternative method of demonstrating a need for nursing home beds when there appears to be no need based upon an application of the Formula. A need for nursing home beds can be demonstrated even if there is no need indicated under the Formula and the Specific Exception is not complied with based upon a consideration of other statutory and rule criteria. The Specific Exception is, however, the only method by which an applicant can demonstrate the need for a new nursing home facility based upon an access problem in the relevant service district. HCR has attempted to prove there is a need for its proposed 120 bed facility based in part upon a consideration of Rule 10-5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. This rule provides generally for a consideration of the extent to which all residents of the service area and, in particular, low income persons, the elderly and others, can access existing nursing home beds. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home because of alleged access problems under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code, during the "peak season" in Manatee County and alleged access problems of Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients. As discussed under Conclusions of Law, infra, HCR has failed to comply with the Specific Exception in attempting to demonstrate need for its proposal under Rule 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, any evidence concerning access problems cannot be considered. HCR has also attempted to demonstrate need for its proposal based upon an application of Rules 10-5.11(4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. These rules require a consideration of the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of providing the proposed health services and the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing services. In particular, HCR has attempted to prove that like and existing services in Manatee County are not meeting the needs of Alzheimer patients and respite care patients and that there are no alternative, less costly or more effective methods of providing HCR's proposed services. If HCR had succeeded in demonstrating need for its proposal under these rules, a certificate of need would have been recommended even though the Specific Exception was not complied with. HCR has agreed that its proposed facility will meet the alleged need for Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients and respite care patients in Manatee County by dedicating a thirty- bed wing to the care of Alzheimer patients, a thirty-bed wing to respite care patients and guaranteeing access to fifty percent of its beds to Medicaid patients. The following findings of fact are made with regard to the specific categories of persons allegedly in need of nursing home care. Although HCR's proposed findings of fact concerning access problems of these groups are not relevant because of its failure to comply with the Specific Exception, findings are made in an abundance of caution in case the Department or a Court ultimately determines that need can be demonstrated based upon access problems even when the Specific Exception is not complied with. Medicaid Patients. Manatee County generally experiences a "peak season" from November to March during which time nursing home bed use increases. The peak season in 1984-1985, however, was only about seven weeks. During the peak season there is some difficulty in placing Medicaid patients in nursing home beds in Manatee County. Between January, 1985 and March, 1985, the Department's Manatee County office placed twenty-two Medicaid patients in nursing home beds located outside of Manatee County. Some Medicaid patients have also been placed in adult congregate living facilities even though such placements are contrary to the prohibition against placing patients in need of skilled nursing home services in such facilities. L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital has also had to place patients in nursing homes on a temporary basis outside of Manatee County. During the past year, only twenty-four patients were placed in nursing homes outside Manatee County. The evidence does not establish how many of those patients were Medicaid patients, however. Alzheimer Patients. Alzheimer's disease is a disease which primarily afflicts persons in their 50's and 60's. It can, however, afflict younger persons also. The disease progresses through three stages and has no cure. During the first stage, the afflicted person experiences forgetfulness, impairment of judgement and inability to perform routine tasks. During the second stage, the afflicted person begins to wander. During the third and final stage, the afflicted person becomes dependent and incontinent. Currently there are approximately 160 Alzheimer patients in the five existing nursing homes in Manatee County. None of these nursing homes has a special program designed for Alzheimer patients. The evidence does not, however, support a finding that Alzheimer patients are not being adequately cared for. The evidence also does not establish how many persons in Manatee County are afflicted by Alzheimer's disease or the number of persons so afflicted who are in need of nursing home care. Generally, it is not until the third stage of the disease that nursing home care becomes necessary. Even then some Alzheimer patients are cared for in the home, private boarding facilities, or mental hospitals. The evidence does establish that no person afflicted with Alzheimer's disease has been refused admittance to a nursing home bed in Manatee County. The evidence also establishes that there is a 303 bed nursing home located in neighboring Hillsborough County which treats only Alzheimer patients. Hillborough County is located in District 6. Finally, the evidence demonstrates that Alzheimer patients would benefit from a special wing dedicated to the care of Alzheimer's disease in its final stages. Respite Care Patients. Respite care is the placement of a person in need of care under the supervision of another person for a short period of time. One purpose of this care is to free-up the primary care giver for a short period of time. The patient needs supervision or may need skilled nursing care. The length of the care can vary from a few hours to several weeks. HCR has proposed to establish a thirty-bed wing in its proposed facility that will be dedicated solely to the care of respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks. None of the existing nursing homes in Manatee County provides the type of specialized wing HCR in proposing. The evidence establishes that there is a need for such a service in Manatee County. The evidence does not establish, however, how many nursing home beds are needed. There was testimony that there was a need for fifty nursing home beds. This testimony was, however, purely a "guess". Additionally, this estimate was not limited to the type of respite care HCR proposes to provide; the respite care giving rise to this guess included respite care for as short a period as three to five days. Short-term respite care needs are currently being met by existing programs in Manatee County. DHRS Exhibit 4 does not corroborate the fifty bed estimate because it is not at all clear what the data on this Exhibit means. Based upon the foregoing, there is a need for nursing home beds for Medicaid patients during the "peak season" and for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of an access problem. The need of these patients, however, has not been properly demonstrated pursuant to the Specific Exception and therefore cannot be considered. If this need could be considered even though the Specific Exception has not been complied with, the evidence fails to demonstrate how many additional beds are needed. Additionally, two new nursing homes have been approved for construction which will add 240 nursing home beds in Manatee County. The addition of these beds will eliminate some, if not all, of the need of Medicaid patients. There is a need for nursing home beds for respite care patients in need of skilled nursing care for a period of one to eight weeks because of the lack of adequate like and existing services. HCR has, however, failed to prove that this need is sufficient to justify its proposal. The evidence fails to demonstrate a need for Alzheimer patients sufficient to justify HCR's proposal based upon the care presently being given to Alzheimer patients in Manatee County. Although the ability of Alzheimer patients to access beds is not relevant because of HCR's failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the evidence also fails to demonstrate any access problem of Alzheimer patients. Alzheimer patients would benefit from a dedicated nursing home wing. This finding, however, based upon the other findings of fact in this case, does not justify HCR's proposal. Even if it were concluded that HCR does not need to comply with the Specific Exception in this case, the evidence does not support a finding that a 120 bed facility should be approved. The only evidence as to the total number of nursing home beds allegedly needed in Manatee County was presented by Mr. Jay Cushman, an expert in the field of health planning. According to Mr. Cushman there is a need for a minimum of 193 additional nursing home beds in Manatee County. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon the criteria of Rules 10- 5.11(3)(a)-(d), (4) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. In particular, Mr. Cushman relied upon the effect on nursing home bed use of Manatee County's peak season and the needs of Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's opinion was based upon his determination that there is a need for a total of 1,174 nursing home beds in Manatee County. This figure was arrived at by adding Mr. Cushman's projected need for Medicaid patients (40 beds), Alzheimer patients (121 beds), respite care patients (50 beds) and the current peak census of nursing homes in Manatee County (718 beds). The sum of these figures was multiplied by 1.137 (to account for population growth in Manatee County over the next three years) and the result was divided by ninety percent (to account for a maximum occupancy rate of ninety percent). Mr. Cushman's determination of need, to the extent his figures are based upon purported access problems associated with Medicaid patients, Alzheimer patients, respite care patients and persons in need of care during the peak season, should not and cannot be considered because of the lack of compliance with the Specific Exception. Since Mr. Cushman did take into account alleged access problems without complying with the Specific Exception in arriving at his conclusion that 193 nursing home beds are needed in Manatee County, Mr. Cushman's opinion of need is rejected. Even if it was proper for Mr. Cushman to consider access problems despite the failure to comply with the Specific Exception, the weight of the evidence does not support Mr. Cushman's opinion. In arriving at his estimate of the need for Medicaid patients, Mr. Cushman relied in part upon the fact that twenty-four patients (twenty-five according to Mr. Cushman) had been placed in nursing homes located out of Manatee County by L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital personnel. The evidence, however, does not prove that all of these patients were Medicaid patients. Mr. Cushman's determination that 50 beds are needed for respite care patients was based upon on the opinion of Mr. Russell Kitching. Mr. Kitching's estimate was rejected, supra. The most significant problem with Mr. Cushman's determination of bed need is his estimate of the need for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is a need for additional nursing home beds for Alzheimer's patients. The evidence proved that no Alzheimer's patient in Manatee County has been denied access to a nursing home. Finally, Mr. Cushman's opinion is contrary to, and did not take into account, the fact that Manatee County is projected to have an excess of 105 nursing home beds under the Formula. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that HCR has failed to prove that there is a need for a 120 bed nursing home in Manatee County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the certificate of need application filed by HCR for a 120-bed nursing home to be located in Manatee County be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Laramore, Esquire G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire LARAMORE & CLARK, P.A. The Bowen House 325 N. Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire CULPEPPER, TURNER & MANNHEIMER P. O. Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues under consideration are those associated with applications filed by the aforementioned private parties seeking certificates of need for skilled nursing home beds based on a fixed need pool of May, 1989, which identified 261 beds for the January, 1992 planning horizon. The beds are available in HRS District III. The applications are for: CON Action No. 5987 Inverness--20 beds; CON Action No. 5912 Suwannee--60 beds; CON Action No. 5913 McCoy-- 60 beds; CON Action No. 5962 Starke--120 or 60 beds; and CON Action N. 5905 Regency--120 beds.
Findings Of Fact Related to the May, 1989 batching cycle HRS has identified a need for 261 nursing home beds in District III. The applicants accept that determination of the pool of beds, that is to say no applicant has sought beds over and above the 261 beds identified by HRS. Further, the parties have expressed their agreement to allow Regency to be granted CON 5905 to construct a new nursing home facility in Lake County, Florida, which will have 120 beds. The written stipulation sets out the parties belief that all applicable criteria for obtaining a certificate of need as set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, have been met. That stipulation is accepted, provided the following conditions are met in issuing the certificate of need: The annual resident population of the facility shall include at least 62% of Medicaid patient days. Two beds shall be dedicated to the care of Alzheimer and respite care residents. The facility shall be a one story design consisting of 43,000 square feet in size. Likewise, the parties have agreed to allow the issuance of CON 5987 to Inverness to add 20 community nursing beds to its existing facility in Inverness, Florida. That written stipulation points out the agreement by the parties concerning the Inverness compliance with all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes as well as any implementing rules set forth in Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Code. The arrangement is one by which existing ACLF beds are converted to nursing home beds. That stipulation is accepted, upon condition that Inverness commit to provide a minimum of 75.2% of total patient days for Medicaid patients. The Inverness stipulation which reiterates Inverness' lack of opposition to the grant of a certificate of need to Regency also withdraws its opposition to McCoy, Starke and Suwannee. By the terms of the stipulation's 140 of the 261 beds in the pool are spoken for. This leaves for consideration the applications of Suwannee, Starke and McCoy. In the absence of subdistricting, District III is divided into seven planning areas. The planning areas are as established by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. Planning Area l is constituted of Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Columbia, Union and Bradford counties. Suwannee intends to place its facility in Suwannee County. Starke intends to place its facility in Columbia County. The expansion of the McCoy facility would occur in Marion County which is the sole county in Planning Area 4. By resort to the North Central Florida Health Planning Council District III Health Plan preferences can be seen concerning the allocation of beds among the applicants within the various planning areas. A copy of that plan is HRS Exhibit No. 2. Under this scheme the McCoy application to add 60 additional nursing home beds to its existing facility in Marion County, Florida, is considered a third priority. A third priority would allow the addition of at least 60 beds and no more than 120 beds. The Suwannee and Starke applications are a fourth priority under the local plan which allows for an addition of up to 60 beds. The McCoy application as presented at hearing responds adequately to all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, to include the State Health Plan and District III Health Plan. McCoy holds a superior license rating at present and has a proposed capital expenditure for this project of $1,568,000. Taking into consideration the proposed allocation of beds set forth in the local health plan, the distance between the McCoy facility and the proposed facilities in Suwannee and Columbia counties by the applicants Suwannee and Starke and absent proof which clearly identifies that Suwannee and Starke are meaningful competitors against McCoy and its attempt to gain a certificate of need calling for expansion of its facility, the McCoy application should be granted. That grant should be conditioned upon a willingness to serve Alzheimer patients in the proposed 14 bed unit and the commitment to provide Medicaid at a 60% level as a minimum commitment. This arrangement would bring the total number of nursing home beds at McCoy to 120, a desirable number when considering economies of scale. What must be resolved by comparative analysis of the applications of Suwannee and Starke, is which of those competitors for 60 beds out of the 61 beds remaining in the pool should be granted a certificate of need, if any. Starke had noticed its intention to apply for 120 beds and made application for 120 beds and in the alternative for 60 beds. The decision to notice its intent to apply for 120 beds was not misleading nor inconsistent with HRS policy in a circumstance where the application was stated in the alternative for 120 beds or 60 beds. The significant point is that Starke explained its alternatives of 120 beds or 60 beds in detail in the course of the application. HRS perceives that the 120 bed notice of intent took into account a lesser number of beds being applied for on the due date for applications and that perception is reasonable. Suwannee noticed the intent to apply for 60 beds and applied for that many. Both Suwannee and Starke met all procedural requirements for consideration of their applications for nursing home beds. In determining the disposition of the 60 nursing home beds needed for Planning Area l within District III, it is noted that Suwannee and Columbia counties are contiguous. Columbia is east of Suwannee. While the main emphasis by these applicants is to serve the needs of residents within the two counties where the facilities would be located, given their contiguity there is a potential for either applicant to serve needs within both counties. Columbia county is the more populous county. However, in the two counties the age cohorts in the 65 and over group and 75 and over group are similar, especially in the 75 and over group. Occupancy rates in the existing nursing homes within the two counties are also similar. The J. Ralph Smith Health Center in Suwannee County has 107 existing beds and 54 beds approved. Those additional 54 beds were designated for residents of the Advent Christian Village exclusively; however, the residents of that village constitute part of the population base in Suwannee county. Therefore this limited utilization of that resource still benefits citizens within Suwannee county. Surrey Place in Suwannee county has 60 beds and the Suwannee Health Care Center has 120 beds with 60 more approved. The 60 additional beds may not be constructed in that the applicant failed to proceed to construction in the time contemplated by CON 3746 and may lose the beds. Columbia County has Tanglewood Care Center with 95 beds. It has Lake City Medical Center with 5 beds associated with a hospital. Palm Garden of Columbia has approval for 60 beds. On balance there would not appear to be an advantage to placing the 60 beds at issue in either Suwannee or Columbia counties when considering the population to be served, present occupancy rates for existing nursing bomes and geographic accessibility to the proposed nursing homes. Suwannee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. The parent corporation filed the application with the permission of Suwannee. The 60 bed nursing home facility is part of an overall project which includes the replacement of an existing 60 bed acute care hospital with a 30 bed acute care hospital. If the proposals are accepted the hospital and 60 bed nursing home would be located on a common parcel. HRS has granted CON 6179 to decertify 30 beds. The approved cost of the delicensure and establishment of the new hospital is $6,752,824. The nursing home component of this project is stated to cost $3,408,100 in the way of capital expenditures with an operating equity in the amount of $300,000. The overall health care delivery system contemplated in the hospital and nursing home project includes the replacement hospital, the new nursing home, an out patient diagnostic center, home health care, hospice and adult day care services. Suwannee has the financial backing of its parent corporation which owns a number of health care facilities including six hospitals, two health maintenance organizations and six other health related corporations. Both Suwannee and the parent corporation Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. are not for profit. The Santa Fe operations are in Florida and its hospital holdings include other rural hospitals in addition to Suwannee which is a rural hospital. Before filing the application for the 60 bed nursing home neither Suwannee nor the Santa Fe parent corporation had any involvement in long term health care delivery. Suwannee intends to serve the needs of Alzheimer patients and to provide services to persons needing subacute care. In its present hospital facility in Suwannee County it has 24 swing beds with which it serves patients needing subacute care and which beds are seen as an alternative to nursing home beds. That alternative has limited utility. Although swing beds may serve nursing home patients they are not an alternative for long term care in lieu of community nursing home beds. To the extent that Suwannee Hospital has tried to place patients in nursing homes needing a high level of skilled care, described as subacute care, it has experienced problems. Existing nursing homes in Suwannee County have not accepted the placement of those patients. It is unclear from the record what portion of subacute care needed in the service area will continue to be met in the hospital proper with the advent of delicensure of 30 beds. There was testimony to the affect that the hospital has the option to request swing beds in its remaining 30 bed hospital facility, but it has not been shown that the hospital will avail itself of that opportunity and through the use of the swing beds be able to render subacute care. The description by Suwannee of the subacute patients that it is contemplating serving through its nursing home are those who require a shorter stay in nursing facilities, who are said to have fragile medical condition and require intensive licensed nursing care. In the application, it states that the Medicare patients contemplated as being served by this prospective nursing home would be the principal users of the subacute care. There patients would have an average length of stay of 15 days with 12 patients per month being served. The Medicare per diem charge of $130 for the first year of operation is said to include the cost of care given to these patients who are said to be heavy users of subacute care. That per diem charge reflects ancillaries such as the various therapies as well. Having considered the explanation of this application, it is less than apparent what the difference would be between the subacute care services now being provided by the hospital in its swing beds and those contemplated by its nursing home application. In a similar vein, it is unclear what the distinction would be between the subacute care rendered in the proposed nursing home when contrasted with the subacute care being provided in swing beds that might be available in the 30 bed replacement hospital. If granted a certificate of need Suwannee is committed to serving AIDS patients. Suwannee intends to serve Medicaid patients and it projects a percentage of patient days attributable to Medicaid patients in the first two years of operation to approximate 73%. This is contrasted with experience statewide of 62%, within District III of 75% and within the planning area of 81%. Projected per diem rate for Medicaid reimbursement within the first year of operation is $68. The financial expert presented by Suwannee said that the applicant could charge as much as $10 to $12 more, making the Medicaid rate $78 to $80 per day. This increase contemplates raising the present caps on reimbursement. The record does not support increases in the caps of $10 to $12 in the relevant planning period. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay per diem rate at Suwannee reflects $97 as the charge and $80 as the charge for semiprivate room, private pay. This is as compared to $130 for Medicare per diem. Although it is unacceptable to charge more for Medicare than private pay, Schedule 12 within the application shows the inclusion of ancillaries for the Medicare patient and the exclusion of ancillaries for private pay. Under the circumstances it is difficult to tell whether the Medicare per diem charges exceed the private pay per diem charges as has been contended by Starke. The inclusion of the therapies as ancillary costs is shown on page 39 at Schedule 12 of the application of Suwannee. On Schedule 17 in the first operating year the therapies as ancillary costs are not broken out as individual items such as physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy separate and apart from routine services. Instead an aggregate figure is given. That precludes an understanding of what portion of the per diem charge for Medicare patients is attributable to those ancillary costs. The circumstance is made more bewildering in that the financial expert presented by Suwannee stated that the $130 per diem charge had application to residents who were receiving subacute care. What portion of the per diem charge for Medicare residents is attributable to the subacute care component is not revealed in the application. Neither, is it explained in the testimony. Notwithstanding the assurance of the Suwannee financial planner that the Medicare rate projected for the first year of operation is in keeping with the Hospital Cost Containment Board's data on the average rate structure, that comment and his other explanations failed to establish the reasonableness of that charge. This is especially true when considering the fact that the Medicaid charges, even accepting an adjusted rate of $80 per day, are also indicated at Schedule 12 as including therapies and are far less than the Medicare per diem. Schedule 17 shows the Medicaid without reference to the therapies as an aggregate item in the same fashion as described with the Medicare category of reimbursement. Further, evidence of the fact that private room, private pay, does not exceed the Medicare per diem charge is related at Schedule 12 where it describes the subacute private room, private pay patient as paying $150 and the semiprivate, room private pay as paying $130. Again, in the Suwannee application in the first year of operation for both Medicaid and Medicare therapies are said to be included in the basic charges of $68 and $130 respectively shown at Schedule 12 and carried forward in the aggregate on Schedule 17. From the explanations stated by the financial planner, the projected costs for therapies by those two categories of patients is not reflected in the ancillary cost centers for physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy found at lines 11-13 of Schedule 18. Instead, they are reflected at line 39 under other costs centers in the amount of $80,900. Moreover the $80,900 is said to include subacute services as well as the therapies. Having considered Schedules 12, 17 and 18 for the first operating year, together with the other evidence presented in the course of the hearing, the estimate at line 39 of Schedule 18 of $80,900 is unreliable. The Suwannee project contemplates a facility of approximately 24,370 square feet. The construction cost estimate is $62.44 per square foot. The total project cost per bed is $56,802. That far exceeds the caps for the property cost component related to Medicaid residents which is presently $30,350 per bed. Put another way, that translates to a differential of $11.64 per patient day above present reimbursement levels for Medicaid residents. That differential cannot be made up by resort to payments for ancillary services for that category of resident. The shortfall attributable to the costs per bed differential in the application of $56,802 compared to $30,350 per bed plus ancillaries is not expected to be made up by resort to other revenue sources within this proposal either, nor can it be properly be. This is particularly true when approximately 70% of the patient days are expected to be provided by Medicaid residents. Even if Suwannee were able to obtain reimbursement for the per bed cost of $56,802, this is much more than the Starke cost per bed which is approximately $30,000 as built. The cap that has been mentioned is the one effective July 1, 1990. Nothing in the testimony would suggest that the caps would approach $56,802 within the planning horizon for this review cycle. In summary, the financial feasibility of the Suwannee proposal has not been established. While the parent corporation, Santa Fe Health Care, Inc., is strong financially and able to sustain Suwannee in its nursing home operation in the short term, even with expected losses, the losses will be extraordinary and the long term feasibility has not been demonstrated either. Simply stated, too much money is being expended to establish this facility and it may not be recouped by resort to the reimbursement scheme identified in the application. Under the circumstances, the nursing home is not perceived as a means of promoting the financial well being of the overall project constituted of the nursing home, relocated hospital and associated services. It is not accepted that the manner and quality of care proposed to be delivered by Suwannee is so superior that it justifies the inordinate expense in delivering the care. In other particulars Suwannee has shown that it meets all applicable criteria for granting it a certificate of need, but the overall costs are so exorbitant that they preclude financial success in the project. In addition, even if the project met the criteria its costs compared to the Starke proposal are so much more that the Suwannee proposal should be rejected in favor of the Starke proposal. It is not accepted that a hospital based nursing home is superior to a freestanding nursing home as urged by the presentation made by Suwannee. Starke had applied for a 120 bed nursing home, with a separate request explaining its proposal to construct a 60 bed nursing home. It is that latter proposal that fits the need in Planning Area I of District III. The total capital expenditure for that alternative proposal is $1,882,713. The cost per square foot is approximately $60 in the 22,500 square foot facility. The per bed costs is in the neighborhood of $30,000. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay is $89; the semiprivate room, private pay rate is $79; the Medicaid rate is $69.50 and the Medicare rate is $69.50. These rates do not include ancillary charges for therapies. The Starke proposal will include a unit for Alzheimer, subacute care, adult day care and respite care. Starke will provide 80% of its patient days for Medicaid residents and 10% of its patient days for Medicare residents. The Medicaid performance exceeds that of Suwannee. That rate is consistent with the experience which Starke has in the operation of its Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida, a 120 bed nursing home facility which has held a superior license rating over the three years preceding the application. Starke as a corporation would own both the Starke, Florida facility and the proposed Lake City, Florida facility. The principals in that corporation with 50% ownership are J. D. Griffis and George R. Grosse, Jr. The subacute care that is to be provided is in patient rooms which are directly adjacent to the nursing station. It is the intention of the applicant to build these rooms to allow support for medical equipment needed in the treatment of those residents. Although some criticism has been directed to the architectural design of the proposed nursing home facility, Starke has committed itself to meet all applicable codes. Under the circumstances it does not appear that this application presents significant problems associated with resident safety or inordinate costs in making necessary adjustments to comply with applicable codes. The Starke application was prepared by Jerry L. Keach, the then administrator for University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, operated by Covenant Care Corporation. By the comments found in the application it was contemplated that the Covenant Care group would manage the Starke facility in Lake City, Florida, which would do business as Lake City Care Center. No contract has been executed between Starke and Covenant Care Corporation to allow the latter entity to manage the Lake City facility assuming the grant of the certificate of need to that applicant. At hearing the principals for Starke indicated that Covenant Care together with other unnamed organizations would be considered as management for the nursing home in Lake City. Although this issue of management is unresolved, reservations about the project are overcome in recognition of the success of the Starke corporation in the operation of the Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida. That suffices as an indication that Starke is capable of installing appropriate personnel to operate the Lake City facility, and provide quality care. The assumptions concerning the various aspects of the proposals set forth in the Starke application are sufficiently explained in the course of the final hearing and those explanations are accepted. It is reasonable to expect that the nursing home could be constructed, staffed and operated in a manner consistent with the explanations found in the application and through testimony at hearing. A successful outcome is anticipated whether the Covenant Care Corporation is employed to operate the facility or not. The favorable impression of the Starke proposal is held notwithstanding the criticism directed to the financial feasibility by remarks offered by Suwannee. In particular the Suwannee Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence questioning the assumptions of the Starke applicant concerning income projections for the first two years have been taken into account. Whispering Pines Care Center presently offers care for Alzheimer patients and subacute services. Therefore problems are not anticipated in the provision of those services in the proposed facility. With due regard for the criticisms that have been directed to the financial ability of Starke to maintain its Whispering Pines Nursing Center and the proposed project in Lake City, Florida, it is found that the applicant has the ability to conduct those businesses. As with the matter of financial feasibility, Starke has satisfied all other applicable criteria for the grant of a certificate of need to construct the 60 bed nursing home.
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which requires all CONs granted to be consistent with the applications and in keeping with that intention: Grants CON 5987 to Inverness for the addition of 20 community nursing home beds to its existing facility upon condition that those beds be constituted of a minimum of 75.2% total patient days for Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5962 to Starke for construction of a nursing home in Columbia County, Florida, constituted of a minimum of 80% total patient days for Medicaid patients, that provides Alzheimer services, subacute care, day care and respite care; Grants CON 5910 to McCoy for the addition of 60 beds upon condition that 60% of the patient days be devoted to Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5905 to Regency for construction of a 120 nursing home facility with 62% of its patient dads being devoted to Medicaid patients, 2 beds dedicated to Alzheimer patients, provision of respite care and that the facility shall be a one-story design consisting of 43,000 gross square feet in size; and Denies the application for a 60 bed nursing home in Suwannee County made by Suwannee under CON Action No. 5912. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 19th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NOS. 90-0043 and 90-0045 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Inverness Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Suwannee Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found in that the Starke application can be advanced without a resort to an affiliation with Covenant Care Corporation. Paragraph 9 is accepted; however, those facts do not cause the rejection of the Starke proposal. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 12 is accepted as factually correct; however, this is not crucial in determining the outcome of this case. Concerning Paragraph 13, while the record reveals that Mr. Keach was responsible at a time moratorium had been placed on admissions into University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, the record was not detailed enough to ascertain what influence that might have on his ability to act as an administrator at the Starke facility proposed in this instance or his competence in preparing the application. The representations found in Paragraph 14 do not preclude the consideration of the Starke application. Concerning Paragraph 15, the first sentence is rejected as fact. The second and third sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 16, those items which are mentioned did not cause the rejection of the Starke application in that Starke is committed to abide by all applicable codes to insure control over the patients. Paragraphs 17 through 21 are contrary to facts found. Concerning Paragraphs 22-24, the Starke proposal is found to be financially feasible. Paragraph 25-27 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 28, notwithstanding economies of scale they will not overcome the inherent extravagance in the costs associated with bringing the Suwannee project on line. Concerning Paragraph 29, while diversification for rural hospitals is desirable, the present attempt by Suwannee is unacceptable. Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 31 see comment on Paragraph 29. Paragraph 32 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 33 is accepted; however, the principal service area would appear to be Suwannee County. The existence of service over to Hamilton, Madison, Lafayette and Columbia Counties does not change the perception of this case. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 35 is contrary to facts found as are Paragraphs 36 and 37. Concerning Paragraph 38, the affiliation of Suwannee with the Santa Fe Health Care system does not overcome the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 41 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 42 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 43 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 46 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 47-55 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 57-60 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 61 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 62 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 63 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 64 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 65, notwithstanding these observations they do not justify the rate structure or per diem charges set out in the Suwannee application. Paragraph 66 is subordinate to facts found as are the first two sentences of Paragraph 67. The last sentence to Paragraph 67 is rejected. Paragraphs 68 and 69 are contrary to facts found. The first sentence of Paragraph 70 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not relevant. Paragraphs 71 through the first sentence of Paragraph 73 is contrary to facts found. Concerning the last sentence of Paragraph 73, Starke is found to be financially feasible and Suwannee is not. Paragraph 74 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 75 and 76 have been taken into account in deciding that there are no particular advantages to placing the 60 beds in Columbia County as opposed to Suwannee County. Paragraph 77 in all sentences save the last is accepted. The last sentence is contrary to facts found in that subacute care will be rendered in the Starke facility. Paragraphs 78 through 80 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 81 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 82 is accepted in the premise, but use of Suwannee as the facility to serve this population is rejected based upon the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraph 83 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the subacute patients would not be best placed with Suwannee. Paragraph 84 and 85 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 1-5 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning that latter sentence it is clear that Suwannee would intend to build the nursing home facility together with the hospital or exclusive of the hospital project. Paragraphs 6-8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 9 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is accepted and it is acknowledged that the applicants can approximate that average. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 13 Suwannee did establish its percentage of commitment to Medicaid through proof at hearing. Paragraphs 14 through 23 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is contrary to facts found in that Starke offers no greater enhancement than Suwannee in terms of geographic accessibility and is not really a competitor in this criterion with McCoy. Paragraphs 25 through 27 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 28 is contrary to facts found in that Suwannee did identify the programs that it intends to offer. Paragraphs 29 through 36 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 37 in the first sentence is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 39 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 40 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 41 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion that there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 42 is rejected. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 44 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 45 through 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 53 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 54 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the reason that the Suwannee project is not found to be financially feasible does not include reference to a higher charge for Medicare patients than the charge to private pay patients. Paragraphs 55 through 60 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 60 are subordinate to facts found. The nursing home is intended to be built whether the replacement hospital is built or not. Paragraphs 61 through 65 are subordinate to facts found. Starke Paragraphs 1 through 5 with the exception of the latter two sentences in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning the next to the last sentence, it was made clear that the intentions on the part of Suwannee were to build the nursing home. The last sentence to the extent that it is intended to suggest that this applicant is incapable of offering long term care services is rejected. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 12 to the extent that it suggests that Suwannee is not willing to provide services to Medicaid recipients, it is rejected. Paragraphs 13 through 21 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is contrary to facts found in that Starke is not seen as enhancing geographic accessibility to a greater extent than Suwannee its true competitor. Paragraphs 23 and 24 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found ih that Suwannee has identified its special programs. Paragraphs 26 through 33 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 35 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 36 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 37 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion than there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 39 is rejected. Paragraphs 40 and 41 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 42 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 43 through 50 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 51 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 52 is subordinate to facts found except as it suggests that the difference in rate between Medicaid patients and private pay patients in the Suwannee proposal forms the basis for the criticism that the Suwannee project is not financially sound. Paragraphs 53 through the first two sentence of Paragraph 59 are subordinate to facts found. Related to the latter sentences in Paragraph 59 it is clear that the schematic pertains to the basic design of the Suwannee facility whether attached to a new hospital or free standing. Paragraphs 60 through 64 are subordinate to facts found. McCoy Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 through 83 are subordinate to facts found. Regency Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Elizabeth McArthur, Esquire Jeffrey Frehn, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle and Thomas 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez and Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahasee, FL 32314-6507 Leslie Mendelson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, FL 32308 James C. Hauser, Esquire F. Phillip Blank, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Julie Gallagher, Esquire F. Philip Blank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Grafton B. Wilson, II, Esquire 711 North 23rd Avenue, Suite 4 Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, FL 32602 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Dempsey and Goldsmith, P.A. 307 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact The controversy Forum Group, Inc. (Forum Group), Hillsborough Healthcare, Ltd. (Hillsborough Healthcare), Health Quest Corporation (Health Quest), and Careage House Healthcare Center (Careage) filed applications for certificates of need for community nursing homes in Hillsborough County, which is a subdistrict of HRS district VI. The applications were filed in the July, 1986, batching cycle, for need in July, 1989, known as the planning horizon. As amended prior to being deemed complete by HRS, Hillsborough Healthcare and Careage sought 120 beds, Health Quest sought 88 beds, and Forum Group sought 60 beds. All of the applications satisfy and are consistent with state and local health plans. The Department's free form preliminary action Ordinarily, the Department's preliminary decision on these applications would have been issued in November or December of 1986. In these cases, the parties were orally advised of the Department's preliminary action in January, 1987, but the state agency action report containing that preliminary decision was not issued until August, 1987. The delay in decision making in this case occurred due to the altered process of free form decision making that was used in this case. Careage filed a number of applications in the July, 1986, batching cycle, in a number of subdistricts. The preliminary review conducted by HRS determined there to be bed need in four of the counties in which Careage had applications: Hillsborough, Polk, Pinellas, and Lee. During free form agency decision making on the applications in this batching cycle, Ms. Marta Hardy was the Deputy Assistant of Regulation and Health Facilities for the Department. T. 1024. Her duties included responsibility to oversee the issuance of certificates of need and develop health planning policies. Id. Ms. Hardy was the direct supervisor of Robert Maryanski, who was the head of the office of community medical facilities, and Robert Sharp, who was the head of the office of comprehensive health planning. T. 1024. Mr. Maryanski was the direct supervisor of Mr. Reid Jaffe who reviewed the applications in Hillsborough county. Preliminary decisions on the applications in this batch were normally due in November, 1986. It was the normal procedure at the Department to review applications for certificates of need in the following manner. First, an employee in the position entitled "medical facilities consultant" reviewed all applications in the batching cycle for a particular district or subdistrict and made recommendations on each application. These recommendations were then reviewed by his supervisor, the medical facilities consultant supervisor. The recommendations of the medical facilities consultant supervisor upon each application then went to Mr. Maryanski. In Hillsborough, Polk, Pinellas, and Lee Counties in the July, 1986, batching cycle, all reviewers found there to be a bed need. In the normal course of business, all reviewers forwarded through Mr. Maryanski and to Ms. Hardy recommendations that did not recommend the award of a certificate of need to Careage in any of these four counties. T. 1057, 1055, 1281-82. Mr. Maryanski told Mr. Jaffe to "find a way" to approve the Careage application in Pinellas County. T. 1283-84. The time of this communication is not in the record. At about the time that Careage applied for certificates of need (August or September, 1986), Ms. Hardy had dinner with the owner of Careage, Mr. Gene Lynn, Mr. Lynn's wife, and Mr. Ralph Haben. T. 1040. At that meeting, the representatives of Careage told Ms. Hardy that Careage operated nursing homes in other states in which care of good quality was provided. T. 1060. Mr. Haben is an attorney, and was then representing Careage. T. 1059. Mr. Haben and Ms. Hardy had been friends since the late 1970's, and in August and September, 1986, they had had lunch or dinner together socially four or five times. T. 1041- 49. In December, 1986, after Departmental staff had preliminarily recommended that Careage's applications be disapproved in the four counties in which was there was need, Ms. Hardy determined to ask Robert Sharp to review applications in the four counties. The result of Mr. Sharp's review was to recommend approval of the Careage application in the four counties. That recommendation was approved by Ms. Hardy. Mr. Sharp was responsible for health planning. He normally had nothing to do with review of certificate of need applications, although he had reviewed some hospital applications in the past. T. 1054. Ms. Hardy had come to the conclusion that Careage provided care of good quality. T. 1063. At the time she formed that opinion, Careage did not operate any nursing homes, and had not done so since 1982. Mr. Sharp understood that Ms. Hardy was impressed with Careage, but did not know the basis for such favorable impression. T. 940. Ms. Hardy told Mr. Sharp that she did not believe that the current method of comparative review of applications was adequate, and used Careage as an example of a best qualified applicant that was overlooked by the current method. T. 940. Mr. Sharp developed a method for comparative review of the applications in the batch for Hillsborough County and the other counties. The method has been referred to in the record as a matrix. Mr. Sharp simply selected certain aspects of the applications for comparison. Two types of information were selected: numerically quantified information, and "program characteristics," which called for a determination whether the selected item existed or did not exist in the proposal. The "matrix" also had a narrative for some of the applicants. Mr. Sharp used Careage as the standard of comparison for all other applicants in the comments section. There was no evidence that the items selected by Mr. Sharp were unreasonable or unfair. The items selected appear to be reasonably related to the task of comparing the virtues of the applicants. The items, for the most part, simply are based on information required by the Department in the application form. The matrix was found in September, 1987, to contain numerous factual errors, and the Department issued a revision. H.Q. Ex. 27. Need pursuant to rule 10-5.011(1)(k) Licensed beds in the district (LB) The number of licensed beds in the district (LB) as of June 1, 1986, was at least 5,964. T. 1706. This figure is derived by adding the 5,557 licensed beds shown on the August 25, 1986, semi-annual nursing home census report, H.Q. Ex. 16, to the 407 additional community nursing home beds that has been erroneously classified as sheltered nursing home beds. None of the other testimony credibly establishes this base figure. There is a dispute as to whether 96 additional beds at the Home Association should be considered licensed community nursing home beds as of June 1, 1986. The Home Association was founded in 1899. It is officially recognized that there was no certificate of need requirement in 1899. The Home Association has never received a certificate of need. Thus, it is inferred that the Home Association was never "issued" beds for "nonrestrictive use." At the time that the Home Association was licensed, there was no license category of "sheltered bed. Prior to 1982, there was no statute defining a "sheltered bed." T 1721-22. Thus, prior to 1979, the Home Association was not 1,issued" beds as "sheltered beds" or "for restrictive use". The Home Association is in the district and in the subdistrict, Hillsborough County. The Home Association had 96 beds in 1972, and had the same number on June 1, 1986. On or about August 20, 1986, HRS sent a letter to the Home Association. HQ Ex. 9. The letter stated that HRS records currently identified the Home Association as a "sheltered nursing home/continuing care facility licensed under Chapter 651, F. S.," but that HRS records did not indicate the date of the initial CON. The letter stated that the specific number of beds allocated to community and sheltered nursing home beds were listed below. At the bottom of the letter, HRS listed 96 beds in the column and line identified as current number of sheltered nursing home beds. The Home Association was told to review the data and make changes and return the letter to HRS. It further stated that a failure to respond would be interpreted as approval of the HRS listed bed allocations. The letter then provided four blanks for the Home Association to respond. The first two provided places to show the "corrected number of beds" both on a line identifying such beds as "community nursing home beds," and a line identify such beds as "sheltered nursing home beds." The Home Association left these lines blank. The third blank asked for the certificate of need number and date. The Home Association typed in: "The Home was founded in 1899; no certificate of need was issued." The fourth blank stated: "Sign Here if Corrections Requested." Initials appear in handwriting in that blank. H.Q. Ex. 9. The response of the Home Association was ambiguous. Having signed the fourth blank, thus seemingly communicating a desire to "correct" the form, the Home Association failed to tell HRS whether it wanted to correct the number of beds or the classification of the beds, or some combination thereof. HRS's need expert admitted that the only way one could settle the question would be to call the Home Association. T. 1724. The problem is further compounded by the way in which the letter from HRS was drafted. The letter did not ask the Home Association to provide information concerning the "historical utilization" of the 96 beds at the Home Association, and thus did not collect any information as to "historical utilization." See the last sentence of section 651.118(8), Fla. Stat. (1987). Instead, it told the Home Association that HRS records identified the Home Association as a sheltered nursing home/continuing care facility licensed under chapter 651. It also told the Home Association that "any nursing home bed located in a continuing care facility and not approved specifically as a sheltered nursing home bed and any nursing home bed located in a life care facility prior to 1979 shall be classified as a community nursing home bed." And the letter appeared to allow the Home Association an opportunity to request a "change in status" only if it had been issued a certificate of need as a community nursing home bed after 1979 and before 1982. It may be that when the Home Association wrote back that it had no certificate of need issued, and that it had been in existence since 1899, the Home Association was simply telling HRS that its beds fell in the category of automatically being community nursing home beds because "located in a life care facility prior to 1979." If the Home Association beds are counted as community nursing home beds, then those 96 beds are added to 5,964, and LB is 6,060. Licensed beds in the subdistrict (LBD) On June 1, 1986, there were 2,612 licensed beds (LBD) in the subdistrict, Hillsborough County. If the 96 beds at the Home Association are counted as community nursing home beds, then LBD is 2,708. Current populations (POPC and POPD) Whether POPC and POPD are the populations on January 1, 1986, or July 1, 1986 HRS divides the regulatory function with respect to certificates of need into two program offices. The office of comprehensive health planning (OCMF) is ordinarily responsible for writing the rules and developing the methodologies for the certificate of need program. It is also responsible for writing the state health plan. The office of community medical facilities (OCMF), which is now called the office of community health services and facilities, is normally responsible for making decisions upon applications for certificates of need. T. 929 (The transcript is in error on line 11; it should read OCMF), 930, 936, 1748, 1251. There are exceptions. T. 937 From 1984 through 1986, the office of comprehensive health planning routinely issued semiannual reports in which it calculated the need for community nursing home beds. H.Q. Exs. 12-18. T. 970-971, 1251. In each of these reports, bed need was projected for an established date. In each of these reports, the "current populations" (the base populations from which the need projection was made) were 3.5 years earlier than the date upon which need was projected. H.Q. Exs. 12-18; T. 1253. From 1984 through 1986, notwithstanding the fact that the semiannual report was based upon a 3.5 year period of need projection, the office of community medical facilities sometimes used a 3.0 year period of projection to actually issue certificates of need. T. 1254. That practice was not uniform within the office of community medical facilities. A number of certificate of need applications were issued based upon the calculations of need in the semiannual nursing home report, which used a 3.5 year period of projection. T. 560-561. It is officially recognized that several formal administrative hearings were settled using a 3.5 year period of projection of need. Health Quest Realty d/b/a Regents Park of Sarasota v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Final Order issued October 25, 1985 (CON number 3278), DOAH case number 84-3389, which was an exhibit in DOAH case number 86-0050, both cases which were before this Hearing Officer; Health Quest Corporation d/b/a Regents Park of Broward v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 2485, DOAH case number 84- 3297. But even that deviation was not uniform. It is officially recognized that in Manor Care of Hillsborough County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1102, DOAH case number 86-0051, HRS proposed at the formal administrative hearing to use a 2 year period of projection, using 1986 populations as "current" populations, although the applications were filed in 1985, and need was being projected in 1988. See paragraph 18, findings of fact, of that recommended order, which was written by this Hearing Officer. See also T. 1290. It is also officially recognized that in Forum Group, Inc., et al. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 8 F.A.L.R. 5438, 5445, para. 15, the Department used January 1986, as the starting date for a projection to July, 1987, an 18 month period of projection. It would serve no useful purpose to review all the other orders in the files of the Division of Administrative Hearings. It may be concluded from the foregoing that the way in which HRS has interpreted the meaning of "current" populations in its nursing home rule in the period from 1984 to 1986 was inconsistent. In fact HRS did not uniformly use a 3.5 year period of projection as now urged by the Petitioners. Since it has been concluded as a matter of law that the values of POPC and POPD must be determined as of July 1, 1986, no findings of fact will be made as to the populations on January 1, 1986. Whether POPC and POPD are determined from the July 1, 1986, or the May 12, 1987 release of Governor's estimates and projections The Governor's estimates and projections of population are prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research and the University of Florida. T. 240. The Governor's estimates are released twice a year. T. 241. A population estimate, such as POPC or POPD, is an educated guess as to current population size. T. 239. A population projection, such as POPA or POPB, is a mathematical prediction of what a future population size will be. T. 240. The Governor's population estimates are based primarily upon actual data collected with respect to residential electric hookups combined with local information about housing mixes and national data about household size, persons per household, and institutional or group populations. T. 240, 242. The information is gathered each year. T. 242. The Governor's population projections are based upon the most recent population estimate projected forward using assumptions about future migration, mortality, and fertility. T. 240, 242. The May 12, 1987, Governor's population estimates and projections were the official Governor's release on the date of the formal administrative hearing, and were then the most current release. T. 241. The May 12, 1987, Governor's population estimates and projections for July 1, 1986, and July 1, 1989, were more accurate than the release by the Governor on July 1, 1986 for the following reasons: The May 12, 1987, projection of populations on July 1, 1989, is more accurate because the projection only attempts to project two years into the future. The July 1, 1986, release tries to project three years into the future. Extrapolation is more accurate over a shorter period of time because the underlying assumptions upon which the extrapolation is based will be assumed to remain constant for a shorter period of time. Stated another way, fewer things typically go wrong with the assumption that assumptions will remain constant over a short period of time rather than a longer period of time. T. 243-244. The May 12, 1987, projection of populations on July 1, 1989, are based upon actual hard data (electric hookups) for July 1, 1986, projected forward. The July 1, 1986, projection of populations for July 1, 1989, was not based upon a population estimate, but was based upon a population projection as to the population on July 1, 1986, which itself was based upon electric hookup data from an earlier period. T. 244. (This is also the reason that the May 12, 1987, estimate of July 1, 1986, populations, is more accurate than the projection of that population released on July 1, 1986.) The May 12, 1987, projection of populations on July 1, 1989, are based more current (actual 1986) figures upon which the extrapolation is made: actual levels of fertility, mortality, and migration for 1986, as well as 1980 through 1985. The July 1, 1986, release did not have this better data available, and had to rely on figures for only 1980 through 1985. T. 244. The district has grown at about 2.9 percent a year from 1980 to 1986. The July 1, 1986, release projects a rate of growth in each year from July 1, 1986, to July 1, 1989 of only 1.6 percent, or only one-half of the actual observed rate. There is no basis to conclude that the district growth rate in the period 1986-1989 will be one-half the rate observed in the prior six years. T. 245. The July 1, 1986, release bases its projection of July 1, 1989, populations upon an extrapolation based in part upon mortality rates from 1980 mortality tables. However, the mortality rates for the age groups involved, ages 65-74 and 75+, have substantially declined since the 1980 tables were compiled. T. 247-248. Elfie Stamm is Supervisor of the HRS Health Care Facilities and Services office. That office is responsible for all HRS health planning activities, including development of regulations for the certificate of need program, issuance of health policies governing the certificate of need program, and development of the state health plan. Ms. Stamm thought that the May 12, 1987, release of Governor's estimates and projections of populations was more accurate than the July 1, 1986, release because it was based on more up-to-date data. F.G. Ex. 15. The effect of selecting the May 12, 1987, release of populations, rather than the July 1, 1986, release upon the net need projected for the subdistrict in July, 1989, by HRS's rule is exceptionally dramatic: if the July 1, 1986, release is used, the net bed need is 143, and if the May 12, 1987, release is used, the net bed need is 300, assuming other factors are held constant (the projection period and the Home Association beds). HQ Ex. 4. Thus, use of the May 12, 1987, release of populations reveals 100 percent more bed need in 1989 than use of the July 1, 1986, release. HRS presented only one justification or basis for its policy of using the July 1, 1986, release of population estimates and projections: those were the most current estimates and projections at the time the applicants filed their applications and subsequently when the agency conducted its review of the applications in the batching cycle and developed its proposed agency action. T. 1709. The July 1, 1986, release of population estimates and projections was not available, however, when the applicants in this batch had to file their letters of intent. T. 1286. Based upon the Governor's estimates of population released on May 12, 1987, the estimated population on July 1, 1986, for age 65-74 (POPC) was 134,968, and for age 75+ (POPD) was 94,402. H.H. Ex. 6. Projected populations on July 1, 1989, POPA and POPB Based upon the Governor's projections of population released on May l2, 1987, the projected population on July 1, 1989, for age 65-74 (POPA) was 149,771, and for age 75+ (POPB) was 108,400. H.H. Ex. 6. The occupancy rate The occupancy rate for the 2,612 licensed community nursing homes within the subdistrict for October, 1985, through March, 1986, was 94.18 percent. T. 1707. If the 96 nursing home beds at the Home Association are counted as licensed community nursing home beds within the subdistrict, the occupancy rate within the subdistrict for October, 1985, through March, 1986, was 94.29 percent for these 2,708 beds. This is derived by averaging the occupancy rate of the Home Association for the six month period, which is 97.225 percent, see T. 1725, and then factoring the two rates together as follows: (97.225 X 96/2708)) + (94.18 X 2612/2708)= 94.29. The date for determining licensed beds and approved beds for purposes of determining net need in the final calculation The number of approved beds was 368 whether one relies upon the date that the supervisor signed the state agency action report, T. 1708, or August 25, 1986, which is the date of the semiannual nursing home census report and bed need allocations, H.Q. Ex. 16. It appears that all parties agree to use of 368 for AB in the formula. See T. 1708, 437; F.G. Ex. 8. Since that is the case, the following findings of fact are made in the event that the Hearing Officer has overlooked evidence on this point in this voluminous record. HRS relies again on incipient policy for the date of determination of the number of approved beds. That policy is to determine the number of approved beds in the subdistrict on the date that the supervisor signs the state agency action report, a date different from the date that licensed beds are determined. T. 1708, 1716. Pursuant to this policy, the date for determining approved beds will vary, but will always be later than the date of determining licensed beds. T. 1291. The basis for this incipient policy was not explained in this record. T. 1698-1711, 1711-1728, 1291-1295, 1746-1764. Mr. Jaffe, the supervisor in this case, first signed the state agency action report in mid-November, 1986. T. 1295. Subsequently, however there were several superseding state agency action reports, and the report signed originally by Mr. Jaffe was never issued. As a result, the last state agency action report in this case was not issued until August 18, 1987, over one year after the initial applications were filed. This was an irregular procedure, and not the way state agency action reports normally are issued. T. 1714. Moreover, the state agency action report issued in August, 1987, did not have a line or signature for the supervisor, Mr. Jaffe, to sign. T. 1292; F.G. Ex. 5. Changes to the application of Forum Group Forum Group's original application for certificate of need in this case is F.G. Ex. 3. It should be noted that this exhibit contains some revisions to tables that were filed by Forum Group before HRS deemed application to be complete, and thus superseded earlier tables in the same exhibit. At the formal administrative hearing, Forum Group submitted an "update" of its application for certificate of need which was prepared about a year after the initial application, as amended, was filed. The update is F.G. Ex. 6. T. 43. Table 7 of both applications contains Forum Group's plan for utilization by class of pay. Table 7 in the original application was for the first year of operation. Table 7 of the update is for the second year of operation. Table 8 of the application is a list of projected patient charges by reimbursement or charge type. Table 8 of the update is significantly different from the original application. Table 8 of the original application, F.G. Ex. 3, listed charges that were consistent with then current charges at other Forum Group facilities. T. 185. The update is for an effective date two years later. Although Forum Group presented evidence that the charges in the updated table 8 were reasonable, T. 189, it claimed that the above increases were solely due to the two year difference in the tables. T. 195. There is also evidence that the revised charges in table 8 was based upon a telephone survey conducted of subdistrict nursing homes three months prior to the formal administrative hearing. Forum Group was unable to provide any evidence as to whether the charges in the updated table 8 were based upon data that was not available to Forum Group when the original table 8 was prepared; moreover, Forum Group did not prove that the data was such that Forum Group could not, and reasonably should not, have been expected to have gathered for its original application. T. 198. The revisions of table 8 were not based upon ordinary inflation. Forum Group assumed in both the original table 8 and the revised table 8 that the inflation rate impact on charges between the first and second year of operation would be only 3.5 percent, T. 199. Forum Group's expert on charges was of the opinion that the inflation rate for expenses would be about 3.5 percent. T. 200-201. The increases in charges shown on table 8 of the update are much greater than expected inflation. For example, the charge for Medicaid ICF semiprivate rooms increased from $50 to $63, an increase of 26 percent. The charge for private pay ICF private rooms increased from $75 to $115, an increase of 53 percent. Table 10 of the application is a projection of patient days and occupancy percentages for each month over the first two years of occupancy. The revision to table 10, F.G. Ex. 6, were prompted by the delay in the case, resulting in an initial opening date two years later. The revisions to table 10 in the update were also based upon the prior experience of Forum Group and a telephone survey of subdistrict nursing homes to obtain more current fillup and occupancy rates. T. 39, 79-80, 84-87. The telephone survey was conducted after the initial application was deemed to be complete. Table 11 of the application sets forth the "manpower" requirements, specifying full time equivalents and annual salaries. Revised table 11 in F.G. Ex. 6 contains changes both in annual salary levels and in FTE's. The dietary supervisor and maintenance supervisor are new positions in the revised table 11, and would be shared with the retirement living facility. These positions could have been reported in the original table 11. T. 164; F.G. Ex. 6. The revised table 11 reports positions for utility workers, positions not in the original application but which could have been reported in the original table 11. T. 166. The revised table 11 has fewer registered nurses and licensed practical nurses than the original application. This change was based upon Forum Group's decision that this new staffing pattern would be more efficient. While the testimony attributed this to a difference in projected occupancy in the first year (95 percent instead of 74.4 percent), this is not a plausible reason for changing the number of RN FTE's from 5.3 to 4.3, or the number of LPN FTE'S from 3.6 to 2.8, since one would expect a need for more nursing at higher occupancy. The revised staffing pattern could have been contained in the original application. T. 166, 170. The increases in salaries reported in the revised table 11 were caused in part by inflation (a later opening date). T. 161-62. The revision in salaries was based upon a survey of salaries conducted a year after the application was filed, T. 162. Considered in the new survey was new information concerning federal requirements for professionals that was estimated to make the professional hiring shortage even worse. Id. It is concluded that the basis for the revisions to the salaries was market data that could not have been available to Forum Group when it filed its original application. Table 25 of the application covers estimated project costs. Revised table 25, F.G. Ex. 6, contains changes of two types: shifts of costs from one accounting line to another, and new estimates of costs based upon a later date of construction. T. 66-67, 91-94. The new estimates of costs were based upon inflation and the current construction experience off Forum Group, both of which would not have been available to Forum Group when it filed its initial application. T. 66-67. The shifts in costs by accounting line (even though one shift was to operating costs), considered alone, did not substantially change the total project cost. T. 91-94. The construction costs contained in the revised table 25, F.G. Ex. 6, are projected to be $1,654,826, which is 12 percent greater than the $1,466,500 originally projected. This new estimate is based upon inflation, current construction experience, and a decision to reduce some less essential space to lower costs. T. 66-67, 1461-65. The inflation rate is estimated to be higher than 3.5 percent in 1990, and the date of commencement of construction is inferred to be two years later than the date assumed in the original application. The revised projection is also more conservative, based upon Forum Group's analysis of current market data. The revised construction cost is thus adequately based upon new data that was not available to Forum Group when it filed its original application. As a result of inflation, Forum Group decided to reduce some space that was less essential. The reduction of space is reflected in revised tables 17 through 20 of F.G. Ex. 6. Forum Group's initial application (F.G. Ex. 3) did not mention or discuss patient treatment plans, patient rights, patient councils, or Alzheimer's programs. It did, however, list 10 special areas of nursing that it would provide, many of which are in the subacute area. See, e.g., ventilator care and compare T. 150. The revised pro forma of operating expenses projects total operating expenses in the first year of $923,153 and $1,256,991 in the second year. F.G. Ex. 6. The original application, as revised before deemed complete, reported total operating expenses of $659,900 and $740,693, respectively, for these same projected years. The new information in the revised pro forma was explained as based upon a projection of higher use by private pay patients and faster fillup, as well as some inflation. T. 202. The change clearly is not explained as a simple matter of inflation, since the increases are about 50 percent in each of the years. T. 201-202. Changes to the application of Health Quest The original Health Quest application is H.Q. Ex. 1, as amended by H.Q. Ex. 2, and is for an 88 bed community nursing home facility. Health Quest submitted a revised application for 60 beds dated a year later, in September, 1987. H.Q. Ex. 3. Table 8 of the application is the list of projected charges by patient type. The revised application, H.Q. Ex. 3, increased charges from 25 to 34 percent. This new information was not based solely upon inflation assumptions, but was based upon increased assumptions about operating costs, and a decision to make a more conservative projection. T. 629, 690-91. Health Quest did not prove that these assumptions were based upon data not available when the original application was filed. Table 11 of the application lists manpower by position and projected annual salary. The revised table 11, H.Q. Ex. 3, increases the numbers of registered nurses and licensed practical nurses from the original application. The new data is based upon the experience of Health Quest in the year following the filing of the original application. T. 630. The testimony on pages 688-89 of the transcript is not inconsistent with the testimony on page 630. It is evident that a change in planning took place, and that the change in planning was based upon new experience. Table 17 of the revised Health Quest application, H.Q. Ex. 3, does not have six 3 bed rooms which had been planned for the facility in table 17 of the original application, as amended, H.Q. Ex. 2. This new information was not caused by the reduction of the application from 88 beds to 60 beds. Health Quest did not credibly prove that its decision to delete 3 bed rooms from its project was based upon data that it could not have had when it filed its original application. T. 630-31. Table 18 of the revised application, H.Q. Ex. 3, changes the square footage of 1 bed rooms from 150 to 216. Health Quest did not credibly prove that its decision to make this change was based upon data that it could not have obtained when it filed its original application. T. 632-33. Changes to the application of Careage Careage presented new information at the hearing which consisted of Careage Exhibits 18-22 and 24-25. The changes to these exhibits were based solely upon a small (3 percent) inflation rate or a different starting date. T. 1570-85. There was also a decrease in utility rates of an apparent few thousand dollars. Compare C. Ex 25 to C. Ex. 3, attachment 12. T. 1583-85. The new projection of utility rates was shown to be based upon new information from the utility company, and new heating and cooling technology. T. 1584. Changes to the application of Hillsborough Healthcare Hillsborough Healthcare did not submit any changes to its application. The merits of the Careage application Credibility of the Careage application Credibility of Mr. Gentle Russell Gentle is Careage's Vice President for nursing home operations, and is responsible for development of the nursing home at issue in this case, and operation of the facility after it opens, as well as development and operations of other Careage nursing homes. T. 1487. The application filed by Careage in this case was prepared by Mr. Gentle, with the exception of the section on need. T. 1491. Mr. Gentle was called as an expert witness for Careage to provide opinion testimony to substantiate the Careage application and to prove the nature of the facility that Careage states it would build and operate if granted a certificate of need. T. 1491-93. Mr. Gentle testified twice that he had a bachelor's degree with a major in accounting from the Alaska Methodist University. T. 1487, 1493. This testimony was presented in order to have Mr. Gentle qualified as an expert witness. Mr. Gentle was tendered as an expert in several areas, including nursing home finance. T. 1493. Upon voir dire examination, and after it became obvious that counsel conducting the examination had investigated Mr. Gentle's academic credentials, 1493, Mr. Gentle admitted that he did not have a degree in accounting, but that his degree had been in science. T. 1496. A motion was made to have Mr. Gentle precluded from testifying as a witness due to his untruthful testimony. T. 1497-98. The motion for the sanction of preclusion of testimony was denied, but the tender of expertise was denied for lack of credible evidence in the record as to expert credentials. T. 1499, 1504, 1512-13, 1514-16. Since the witness had intentionally lied about his college education, a matter of importance in determining expertise, the remainder of the witness's testimony as to his experience and expert credentials was tainted and not credible. There was no independent evidence of the training and experience of the witness, other than from his own testimony. The tender of expertise thus was denied for lack of credible evidence of expertise in the record. If Mr. Gentle's testimony concerning his experience in nursing home development had been credible, the evidence of such experience was not sufficient to qualify Mr. Gentle as an expert in nursing home development. Since 1985, he had been fully responsible for development of only two nursing homes, and assisted in the development of five others. T. 1509, 1489, 1514-15. If Mr. Gentle's testimony concerning his experience in nursing home operation and administration had been credible, the evidence of such experience was not sufficiently detailed to qualify him as an expert in nursing home operation and administration. T. 1513-15. Mr. Gentle had never served as a nursing home administrator. T. 1494. Mr. Gentle testified that in 1972 he went to work for the State of Alaska as an auditor in the Department of Health and Social Services. He further testified that he worked his way up through the sections and became chief Medicaid auditor for the state of Alaska. T. 1487. The employment record for Mr. Gentle, however, from the State of Alaska was admitted into evidence without objection. H.H. Ex. 33. That record shows a starting date of work in 1973, not 1972. More important, it does not show continuous employment consistent with the claim of having worked "up through the sections." The record shows no employment of Mr. Gentle by the State of Alaska for 2 and 1/2 years, from July, 1973, through March, 1976, and the only employment is in temporary positions, not in permanent positions expected to have been in the "sections" Mr. Gentle "worked up through." Finally, the employment record only shows Mr. Gentle in a position as an accountant IV (temporary) for a 9 month period in 1976. Mr. Gentle's testimony that he obtained the position of chief Medicaid auditor for the State of Alaska after working his way up through the sections is not credible. Mr. Gentle testified that C. Ex. 15 was an excerpt from the magazine "Contemporary Long-Term Care," and that this excerpt was the section of the magazine that included an award. T. 1541-42. He testified that all of the narrative in the exhibit was part of the magazine and the award. T. 1542. This is testimony was incorrect. The last page of the exhibit contains narrative that is advertisement prepared by Careage. The typeset is identical to that in the interior pages as well. Thus, pages 2-4 of the exhibit are not excerpts from the magazine. Mr. Gentle did not choose his words with care as he testified. Table 11 (projected salaries and FTE's) is a part she original application filed with HRS in July of 1986. Mr. Gentle testified that in part the projected salaries were based upon salaries that "Careage is paying to its existing staff." T. 1557. At that time, Careage did not operate any nursing home. Mr. Gentle could have meant that these were salaries in nursing homes leased out by Careage, but his choice of words was misleading. Whether Careage will operate the facility Careage was started in 1962, and since that time it has constructed more than 270 new hospitals, nursing homes, and related facilities. Generally, Careage has built facilities for others to operate. T. 1516-17. A few of these (seven were named, T. 1520) may have been operated by Careage, but the vast majority were not. T. 1591-1520. In 1982, Careage ceased all nursing home operations. T. 1592. From 1982 through 1985, Careage did nothing but hospital development. T. 1519. In 1985, Careage decided to build and operate nursing homes, and in March 1985, hired Mr. Gentle to set up the operating arm of the corporation with respect to nursing homes. T 1513, 1518. In July, 1986, when Careage filed its application for a certificate of need, Careage did not operate any nursing homes in the country. T. 1595. It appears that the first nursing home now operated by Careage was opened in December, 1986. T. 1610. At the time of the formal hearing, Careage operated and managed three nursing homes on its own, and jointly managed three others. (Another was said to be "jointly operated by others.") T. 1519-20. All of these facilities are in western states. In the letter of intent, Gene D. Lynn, the proposed owner of the proposed facility, and the sole owner of Careage, stated his intent to operate the proposed nursing home in Hillsborough County. C. Ex. 3, attachment 8. The application, C. Ex. 3, asserts on page 4-24: Each community and situation is unique. There are times in which we operate directly through Healthco Management (a wholly owned subsidiary). In all cases, we establish the operating procedures and pro forma and closely monitor each facility. This strategy has generated such a successful program that, in twenty-four years of business, we can boast at never having missed a debt service payment nor have we had a single incident of governmental intervention into our operations. (E.S.) The clearly intended implication of the foregoing portion of the application is that for 24 years, Careage has either operated its nursing homes (which in the majority of cases was untrue) or, if it did not operate its nursing homes, it "closely monitored each facility." The statement in the application that Careage closely monitors each facility is not true, at least with respect to currently leased facilities. Mr. Gentle, who is in charge of nursing home operations for Careage, does not routinely review state licensure survey reports for leased facilities. T. 1842. Leased facility reports may be reviewed by the Careage leasing section, which is separate from nursing home operations. T. 1842. The only monitoring that Careage does with respect to leased facilities is to step in if there is government intervention. T. 1843. Careage has retained the contractual right to intervene in the operations of a leased facility only "in cases of severe problems in a facility." (E.S.) T. 1518. The statement in the application, P. 4-24, concerning the history of Careage as to operation or supervision of nursing homes is misleading. As will be discussed ahead, Careage representatives were either confused about the operation of nursing homes by Careage (Dr. Etten) or used words in a manner that misrepresented the operational status of Careage (Mr. Gentle and representatives of Careage at a dinner meeting with Ms. Hardy). These misleading statements, coupled with the prior history generally of not operating nursing homes, lead to the conclusion that Careage has not proved that it will operate the proposed nursing home in Hillsborough County by a preponderance of the credible evidence. Substantive aspects of the application General provisions Careage's original application proposed to construct 120 beds, 10 of which would be a subacute unit, 21 of which would be an Alzheimer's unit, and the remaining 89 beds would be general SNC/ICF (skilled/intermediate) nursing care beds. C. Ex. 3, P. 2-1. Four of the ten subacute unit beds would be designated for neonates and technology dependent children. C. Ex. 3, P. 3-6; T. 1522. The 10 bed subacute unit is proposed to provide 24 hour nursing care patients who are recovering from strokes, craniotomy patients, comatose victims of accidents, and others suffering serious chronic maladies. T. 1212. Nursing services to be provided include tube feedings, ventilators, tracheostomies, continuous intravenous infusion, hyperalimentation, total parenteral nutritional care, and inhalation therapy. T. 1213. The program proposed by Careage conforms to professional standards for such a program. Id. The 21 bed Alzheimer's disease unit is designed and intended to provide an environment adapted for the special needs of those patients. The design and program emphasizes low stimulation, safe ambulation, and simplicity to minimize confusion. The design is considerably more therapeutic for such patients than commingling such patients among other patients in an ordinary nursing home setting. T. 1206-12, 1432, 1474-75. The precise number of skilled and intermediate care nursing beds is unclear. At least 39 beds will be skilled nursing, and 21 beds for the Alzheimer's patients. T. 1136. Careage intends to concentrate on skilled nursing care rather than intermediate care. T. 1523, 1678. Careage does not intend to serve the market for intermediate care. Id.; C. Ex. 3, attachment 8. Careage did not include adult day care in its application, T. 1142, 1592, because it takes the position that adult day care does not require a certificate of need. T. 1592. Careage in fact will not offer adult day care. T. 1192. Careage intends to provide respite care at the facility. T. 1531. Careage estimates that 37 percent of its patients will be Medicaid patients. T. 1361. Quality assurance The nursing quality assurance programs described in the application of Careage are adequate, and would be adequate if implemented by Careage. T. 1221. Dr. Etten testified for Careage concerning her visit to two nursing homes owned by Careage. She did not express an opinion that the Careage quality assurance program in fact would be implemented based upon these visits. She did not describe the current operation of any Careage quality assurance program. She simply stated that she was favorably impressed by the physical environment in those two nursing homes. T. 1221-26. One of the facilities was in Salt Lake City, Utah, and there is no evidence in the record that Careage operates that facility. See T. 1519-20. Indeed, Dr. Etten later admitted on cross examination that she knew the Utah facility was not operated by Careage. T. 1234. Throughout the application process, Careage tended to misrepresent its status as an existing operator of nursing homes providing care of good quality. As discussed above, in the meeting in August or September, 1986, attended by Mr. and Mrs. Lynn, Mr. Haben, and Ms. Hardy, Careage's representatives told Ms. Hardy that Careage operated nursing homes in other states in which care of good quality was provided. T. 1060. The application, at page 4-24, appeared to assert that Careage had 24 years of experience operating nursing homes. Mr. Gentle represented that proposed salaries were based upon salaries in nursing homes currently operated by Careage. These statements were not true. Careage leased facilities, but did not operate any facilities at that time of the application, and its history had been primarily in the development of health care facilities for operation by others. Careage did not exercise close operational control of the leased facilities. And Dr. Etten seemed unconcerned as to what entity was operating the Utah nursing home that she visited. Her failure to do so caused her testimony to appear to be representative of the quality of care actually provided at Careage operated nursing homes. For these reasons, Careage did not prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it has had a history of operation of nursing homes, that it has had a significant history of providing nursing care of good quality, that it has had substantial experience in management of quality assurance programs, or that it would in fact implement the quality assurance program reviewed by Dr. Etten. Staffing Staffing, particularly nursing staffing, is established based upon the assumption that most of the beds at the Careage facility will be at least skilled nursing care beds, and some will be Alzheimer's disease beds or subacute beds, including beds for technology dependent children. Attachment 14, Ex. 3. The nursing staffing proposed by Careage is adequate. T. 1216. Other staffing proposed by Careage is based upon staffing at other facilities owned by Careage and standards in HRS rules. T. 1557, 1559. It is concluded that other staffing is adequate. The projected annual salaries for staff are reasonable. T. 1648, 1656, 1680-81. The objection to this testimony, taken under advisement, was overruled. T. 1687. The witness amply demonstrated expertise with regard salary levels. Construction and facility design The building proposed by Careage would be one story and have 45,500 square feet for 120 residents, or a total of 379.17 gross square feet per bed. T. 1133. The application represents that the net square foot area for living space in 2 bed (semiprivate) rooms is 283 to 295 square feet. C. Ex. 3, table This was an exaggeration. The actual square footage was shown to be substantially less upon cross examination: 213.75 square feet of living space for semiprivate rooms. This figure is based upon the fact revealed upon cross examination that the length of the room for purposes of calculating gross square feet is 23.5 feet instead of 24 feet, 4 inches. This correction reduces gross living square footage for the living area to 305.5, and net to 213.75. The floor plan, site plan, and space programs in the proposed design are adequate and will meet or exceed all requirements of Florida law. T. 1137. The nursing home floor plan does not include a space for adult day care. T. 1142. Careage projects that construction costs will be $56.77 per square foot. This estimate is in line with estimates of other applicants and is reasonable. T. 1176-78. Construction costs equate to $21,526 per bed. Careage did not include an estimate of costs for equipment for technology dependent children, but plans to cover this with funds estimated for contingencies. T. 1195. The amount of such costs is not in evidence. Id. The estimate of overall project costs, table 25 of the application, Ex. 3, is reasonable. T. 1171-76. Total project costs are estimated to be $4,150,000, or $34,583 per bed. The project cost includes $515,000 for 3 to 5 acres of land. T. 1546. The adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed equipment for the facility was not established by expert testimony. See T. 1179. Availability of resources Gene D. Lynn has an extensive history in successfully financing and constructing health care facilities, including nursing homes. T. 1516-17. Gene D. Lynn has more than adequate lines of credit to obtain complete financing for this project. T. 157 6- /7 Existing lines of credit, including SeaFirst, are available up to at least $9 million. T. 1576. The objection as to hearsay, which was sustained, was sustained only as to what unnamed persons with Washington Mutual "indicated." The remainder is not hearsay. It is testimony of the existing state of facts within the personal knowledge of the witness. The foregoing findings of fact are based upon testimony of Mr. Gentle, whose credibility as a witness was partially impeached as discussed in findings of fact above. Mr. Gentle's credibility problems, however, are not sufficient to compel the disregard of his testimony as to the general financial condition of the Lynns and Careage. Mr. Gentle demonstrated that his testimony as to his own expert qualifications was unworthy of belief, and he demonstrated that some portions of his testimony concerning the features of the proposed facility were exaggerated or incorrect. But this is not sufficient evidence to conclude that his testimony as to general financial resources of Careage is an untruth. It is noted that there is no evidence in this record to suggest in any manner that Gene Lynn does not have the net worth set presented in his unaudited financial statement. That net worth is over $45 million. If this were a substantial untruth, surely one of these highly competitive applicants would have presented evidence on the point. Financial feasibility The proposed project is financially feasible in the short term. T. 1632-39, 1686. Careage's projections as to patient mix (by payor type) and expected fillup (utilization) are reasonable. T. 1640- 42 The charges proposed by Careage are reasonable. T. 1642-45. Careage's projections as to operating expenses are reasonable. T. 1648, 1656-57. The proposed project is financially feasible in the long term. T. 1647, 1649-50, 1686. The Forum Group application General provisions Forum Group is a national company which owns and operates 11 retirement living centers and 22 nursing homes in a number of states. The retirement living centers are independent rental apartments which do not require entry fees. T. 20; F.G. Ex. 3. The Forum Group proposal is to construct and operate a 60 bed community nursing home in conjunction with a retirement living facility of 120 apartments and an adult congregate living facility of 30 units. F.G. Ex. 3, attachment 1. The community nursing home section would offer all services required for provision of skilled nursing care, intermediate nursing care, respite care, and adult daycare. T. 27. Forum Group does not propose to provide a separate Alzheimer's disease unit. The estimated total cost of the nursing home portion of the project is $2,673,084. F.G. Ex. 6, table 25. This is $44,551 per nursing bed. Forum Group will accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. T. 27, 210. Quality assurance Forum Group has never had a license denied, revoked, or suspended, and it has never had one of its facilities placed into receivership. T. 158. The proposed facility would provide 24 hour supervision by either a registered nurse or a licensed practical nurse, or by both. T. 140. The staffing levels proposed in the original application are adequate. T. 153. Staffing levels would vary according to the needs of the residents. T. 134. Medications would be distributed by unit dose. T. 139. Forum Group would implement an adequate plan for quality assurance audits. T. 141-43. The plan is in writing, is in use in other Forum Group nursing homes, and covers all aspects of the operation of the nursing home that are relevant to the quality of care received by nursing home residents. Forum Group would check staff qualifications prior to employment and would provide ongoing staff training. T. 149. Forum Group would provide residents with written statements of patients' rights upon admission to the facility, and would have an independent patients' rights council. T. 147- 48 Forum Group provides reasonably adequate nursing care in its existing nursing homes, and would do so in the proposed nursing home. T. 31-32, 158. Staffing The staffing proposed for the facility, and projected salaries, are reasonable and adequate. T. 151-154. Forum Group reviews the qualifications of applicants to insure that applicants are qualified for the job. T. 149. Construction and facility design Forum Group's community nursing home facility will have about 24,500 square feet. This is reduced from the original 27,000 due to inflation in costs. Patient room areas were not changed. T. 1453. This is 408 total gross square feet per bed. The net living area square footage allocated to semiprivate 2 bed rooms is 228 square feet. F.G. Ex. 3. The square footage allocated in both versions is reasonable. T. 1445, 1453. The building would be wood frame with brick veneer. It would have heavy roof insulation, double glazed windows, and a heat pump to conserve energy and to operate with less utility expense. T. 1454. The construction costs, including equipment costs, estimated for the revised project, F.G. Ex. 6, table 25, paragraph d., are reasonable. T. 1453. The costs as originally projected were also reasonable. T. 1446. The proposed facility would comply with state and federal standards for construction. T. 1456. The 60 bed community nursing home would require two to three acres of land. T. 1455. The $400,000 estimated to be needed to acquire a suitable site is reasonable for location in the northwest portion of Hillsborough County. T. 54, 59. Availability of resources Forum Group will attract suitable health care professionals, despite the shortage in Hillsborough County, by offering attractive fringe benefits, including attractive work schedules and continuing education. T. 156-57. Forum Group has the financial resources to construct and begin the initial operation of the facility. T. 182-84. Financial feasibility The project is financially feasible in the short term. T. 182-84. Due to its corporate size and current operation of a number of nursing facilities, as well as the size of the combined planned facility in Hillsborough County, Forum Group will be able to purchase supplies and other operational necessities at a favorable low cost, thus saving on operational expenses. T. 156. The estimated fillup rate in the original application was about 75 percent occupancy after the first year and about 86 percent occupancy after the second year. T. 37. Given the recent experience in Hillsborough County of occupancy around 95 percent and very fast fillup rates for new nursing homes, T. 116-18, a projection of 86 percent occupancy in the second year is probably too low. For purposes of determining financial feasibility, it is reasonable but conservative. T. 37. The project is financially feasible in the long term based upon the pro forma contained in the original application. T. 186-88; F.G. Ex. 3. The merits of the Hillsborough Healthcare application General provisions Hillsborough Healthcare, Ltd., is a Georgia limited partnership owned by Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. Hillsborough Healthcare, Ltd., would own the proposed facility. T. 419. The facility would be managed by Convalescent Services, Inc., (CSI) which is also owned by Stiles A. Kellett, Jr. and Samuel B. Kellett. CSI was formed in 1978 to own and operate extended care facilities owned or controlled by the Kelletts. T. 420. CSI currently operates 21 nursing homes and 3 retirement homes in 7 states. Six of the nursing homes and 2 retirement centers are in Florida. Id. Centralized management is provided by regional offices in Sarasota, Houston, Texas, and Huntsville, Alabama. T. 420. The long range plan of CSI is to acquire and develop nursing facilities in locations where CSI already has a management structure nearby. T. 421. Hillsborough Healthcare proposes to construct and operate a single story combination nursing home, consisting of 120 beds, and an adult congregate living facility, consisting of 60 beds. H.H. Ex. 1; T. 423. The 120 nursing beds would consist of 60 skilled nursing beds and 60 intermediate care beds. The 60 skilled nursing beds includes a distinct 24 bed unit for Alzheimer's disease patients. Id. The application estimates the total project cost to be $5,032,475, with $3,367,668 of that cost attributed to the nursing facility portion of the project. H.H. Ex. 1. This is $28,063.90 per nursing bed for 120 beds. The facility would have a rehabilitation program, activities, and social services programs. T. 423. The Hillsborough Healthcare facility intends to make its facility available as a training facility for medical and nursing schools. T. 461. The facility would participate in both the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and estimates about 30 percent Medicaid utilization. T. 423. Hillsborough Healthcare would accept partial approval of only 60 nursing home beds. T. 490. In that event, the 60 bed nursing facility (combined with the 60 bed adult congregate living facility) would offer the same services, including the 24 bed Alzheimer's disease unit. T. 390, 473. Access as a patient to the facility will be on an equal basis, without distinction as to race, religion, or sex. The facility will be constructed to provide handicapped access. T. 462-63. At least 30 percent of the patients served by the Hillsborough Healthcare facility would be Medicaid patients, and the percentage may well be higher. Currently, 17 of the 21 CSI nursing homes participate in state Medicaid programs, and all of the Florida nursing homes have Medicaid patients. All new nursing homes developed by CSI participate in both Medicaid and Medicare. Many of the 17 nursing homes were not Medicaid certified prior to acquisition by Hillsborough Healthcare, but are now certified and participate. CSI has never decertified one of its nursing homes as a Medicaid provider. T. 424. Existing CSI managed facilities in Florida are currently experiencing a 40 percent Medicaid utilization, which includes at least one in Hillsborough County. T. 1798. B. Quality assurance Sixteen of the 21 CSI managed nursing homes are in states that use a licensure rating system, and of these, 14 are have achieved the highest rating. T. 422. No CSI facility has ever had its licensed revoked or has ever been fined. Id. One-half (three) of CSI managed Florida facilities are rated superior. T. 319. Centralized management and location of facilities so that management resources can be shared should enhance the quality of care at the proposed nursing facility. The quality assurance program will be guided by a lengthy policies and procedures manual that is in use in other Florida CSI managed nursing homes. H.H. Ex. 11; T. 313. CSI employs a full time Florida registered nurse to make visits at least once a month to CSI facilities in Florida as a part of the quality assurance program. T. 316. The nurse conducts quality of care inspections, using measuring instruments developed by the CSI quality assurance program, and teaches new methods to improve the quality of health care. T. 317. Hillsborough Healthcare will have an adequate quality assurance program. T. 310. C. Services and programs CSI would provide programs for care of Alzheimer's disease patients, respite care, and adult day care. Respite care is temporary nursing care, for 16 days or less, to give the family a temporary rest from home care, and to improve the condition of the patient. T. 300. Adult day care is care only during the day to enable a family member to work. T. 301. Both types of care provide an opportunity for the elderly patient to receive nursing services, including the programs and medical care available at the nursing home, while giving home care providers a rest or needed free time. The Alzheimer's disease unit of 24 intensive care nursing beds would have operational and design features to meet the special needs of those patient. The medical director is to be board certified with a specialty in geriatrics and training with respect to Alzheimer's disease. Activities will be altered to accommodate the limitations of those patients. Staffing will be at a higher level, and staff will be specially trained to meet the needs of those patients. The facility will be designed with a secure courtyard, special dining room, and wander guard, to allow movement without physical or chemical intervention or restraints. T. 299, 289. CSI varies the activities programs at its facilities to match the needs of patients. T. 270. Activities for Alzheimer's patients, adult day care and respite care residents are designed within the limitations of those patients. T. 289-90. CSI typically provides activities that provide small and large group interaction, socialization, mental and physical activity, recreation, and religious activities. T. 270. The activities that have been implemented or suggested for CSI facilities are innovative, varied, and appear to be the result of much thoughtful work. T. 273-74; H.H. Ex. 1, pp. 115-123 H.H. Ex. 8. Some of CSI staff involved in activities have received awards for their work. T. 288. The proposed facility would provide activities similar to the activities provided at other CSI facilities. T. 274. CSI has employed an expert in community relations and activities programming to coordinate community relations, activities, and the volunteer program at all CSI nursing homes, including the proposed facility. That expert is the author of pp. 114-121 of the application, H.H. Ex. 1. The expert would recruit and train activities and community relations directors at the proposed facility. T. 287. CSI publishes a newsletter containing an exchange of program information, and encourages each nursing home to publish its own newsletter. Some do. H.H. Ex. 10; T. 284-85. Volunteers are encouraged to participate in nursing home activities. 272. CSI has compiled a package of volunteer information for use in development of a volunteer program at each nursing home. H.H. Ex. 9. Volunteers increase resident participation in programs, bring fresh ideas, and causes there to be a greater variety of activities and programs for residents. T. 281. Association of the nursing facility with an adult congregate living facility is a useful way to provide continuity of care and lessens the trauma to the resident of the initial move into a nursing facility. In some cases, a spouse may live in the adult congregate living facility and thus be closer to the spouse who must be in a nursing facility. CSI currently manages Sun Terrace Nursing Center, a 120 bed nursing home, and Lake Towers Retirement Center, both in Hillsborough County. Consequently, CSI has already in existence a network of relationships that would benefit residents at the proposed facility. Existing relationships include a system for patient referrals from local hospitals, transfer agreements with local hospitals for acute and emergency care, and agreements with local providers for ancillary services, such as physical therapy, diet therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, opthalmology, dental care, podiatry, x- ray, and pharmacy services. T. 302-304. Similar agreements for the proposed facility could be established. Such agreements are cost effective because used only as needed. T. 304. CSI would provide all the ancillary services listed in figure 1, page 14, H.H. Ex. 1. T. 304. Staffing The proposed staffing of the facility, including the 24 bed Alzheimer's disease unit, is adequate. T. 308. The proposed salaries are reasonable and adequate. T. 309. Hillsborough Healthcare will be able to recruit adequate staff. T. 309. Hillsborough Healthcare will provide a reasonable staff development program. T. 309. This program will aid in the retention of staff. T. 310. Construction and facility design The 120 bed nursing section is designed to include 4 private rooms and 58 semiprivate (double occupancy) 4 rooms. T. 355. The design includes the services and departments listed on table 12 of H.H. Ex. 1. It is proposed that the total gross square feet will be 33,996, or 283 square feet per bed. H.H. Ex. 1 The square footage allocated by the design to net living space in patient bedrooms and gross area of the nursing unit, tables 18 and 19, H.H. Ex 1, are reasonable. T. 355. Semiprivate (2 bed) rooms would have 185 net square feet of living space. The Hillsborough Healthcare design has several cost saving features. Sharing ancillary services and spaces (kitchen, administrative areas, and laundry) with the adult congregate living facility of 60 beds reduces the overall construction and equipment cost and operational cost per bed. Use of a modular "T" configuration, with straight line walls and corridors for units, results in a savings in construction cost. T. 360-61. The compact design, accompanied by extensive roof over hangs and insulating materials, will reduce energy requirements. T. 357 The floor plan could easily be altered by alteration of the arrangement of the modular wings to fit on different sites. T. 358. Nurses' stations are located in the middle of wings, giving good visibility down corridors, but no visibility into rooms. The nurses' station is 7 rooms from the most distant room on any wing. H.H. Ex. 1, p. 103. The Alzheimer's disease unit is in a separate portion of one wing, and is contiguous to an interior space that will be fenced to make a secure courtyard. T. 357; H.H. Ex. 1, p. 103. The construction cost includes additional wheelchairs and walkers, and includes $4,500 for a wander guard system for the 24 bed Alzheimer's disease unit. T. 364. The projected construction cost includes fixed equipment. T. 356. The construction cost of $2,331,418 is reasonable. T. 356. All of the costs estimated in table 25, H.H. Ex. 1, p. 33 (estimated project costs) are reasonable. T. 345-466, 356, 455-56. Availability of resources Through available equity and long term debt, adequate resources exist for Hillsborough Healthcare to construct and initially operate the proposed facility. T. 396-402. Financial feasibility The proposed facility is financially feasible in the short term. T. 396-402; H.H. Exs. 15, 16, 1. The projected charge rates, table 8, H.H. Ex. 1, are reasonable. T. 379-80, 400, 452. The projected percentages of patient utilization by payor class, table 7, H.H. Ex. 1, are reasonable. T. 450, 393. The projected number of expected patient days in the first two years of operation, tables 10 and 7, H.H. Ex. 1, reasonable. T. 488-49. The projections of total revenue, table 7, H.H. Ex. 1, are reasonable. T. 400-01. The projections of expenses and net income for the first two years of operation are reasonable. H.H. Ex. 1, pp. 100-01; T. 401-02. The 120 community nursing home bed version of Hillsborough Healthcare's application is financially feasible in the long term. T. 402. If the Department partially approves the Hillsborough Healthcare application for 60 beds, to be operated in conjunction with the 60 bed adult congregate living facility, the projection will be financially feasible in both the short and long term. T. 402. The project would be financially feasible with a higher Medicaid participation. T. 424. The merits of the Health Quest application General provisions Since critical portions of the 60 bed application, H.Q. Ex. 3, were impermissible changes to the 88 bed application, and thus not admitted into evidence, only the 88 bed application will be discussed. Health Quest proposes to construct and operate 88 community nursing home beds in conjunction with an adult congregate living facility of 124 units. H.Q. Ex. 2. The total cost of the nursing portion of the facility is estimated to be $3,054,466, or $34,719 per bed. H.Q. Ex. 2. Health Quest has entered into an agreement with a group of 129 physicians, organized as the University Community Physicians Association of Tampa. That association comprises the bulk of the physicians who practice at University Community Hospital in northern Tampa. T. 585. The agreement is that Health Quest would build and manage the nursing home, and the physicians would provide medical oversight and referrals. T. 579. The physicians would contribute to equity and share in operating profits and losses. T. 624. The share is 25 percent. T. 694-95. Other details are not in evidence. The negotiations for the agreement with the University Community Physicians Association of Tampa took several months, and the agreement itself did not come into being until August, 1987. T. 581. The University Community Physicians Association of Tampa is not named as an applicant in the original application since the agreement came into being after the application was filed. Health Quest intends to construct the proposed nursing home and adult congregate living facility near the present location of the University Community Hospital. T. 583. Health Quest intends to serve approximately 30 percent Medicaid patients. T. 841, 1102. Quality Assurance Health Quest has nursing homes in Florida, Indiana, and Illinois. Health Quest has a reputation in Indiana and Illinois for providing good health care. T. 599-609. Health Quest has three nursing homes in Florida. Of those three, two had been open long enough at the time of the hearing to have received a Florida rating. Both were rated superior. T. 610. Health Quest has a nursing home in Jacksonville, Florida, and the quality assurance program and services at that facility are representative of the type of care and services at other Health Quest facilities, as well as what is intended for the proposed Health Quest facility in Hillsborough County. T. 1077, 1102. All findings of fact which follow that reference the quality of care or scope and nature of services at the Jacksonville facility are thus also findings of fact that these quality assurance programs and services are intended to exist at the Hillsborough facility. The Jacksonville facility maintains a resident care plan on each resident. Health Quest would provide health care of good quality at its proposed facility. Services and programs The Jacksonville facility provides a number of services that require skilled nursing or arguably fall within the category of "subacute" care. The term "subacute" care is not a formal definition, and there is no Florida licensure category for that phrase. The Jacksonville facility provides intravenous therapy, parenteral nutrition, and tracheostomy care. T. 848-51. It also provides care for comatose patients (accident or stroke victims) regardless of age, and care of post-craniotomy patients. T. 851-53, 855-56. Health Quest does not intend to care for neonates (sick infants less than two weeks old). Neonates require care that is distinct from the care required for the elderly, thus requiring staff with different training. Neonates also can be at substantial risk from respiratory and urinary infections commonly present among the elderly in a nursing home. T. 859-61. The Jacksonville facility provides physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy. The physical therapist is a full time position. T. 871. The Jacksonville facility provides counseling to residents and families with a full time social worker on staff. T. 864. The Jacksonville facility provides music therapy, outside trips, and other activities, such as family night, the artist in residence program, and use of the facility for community programs. T. 866, 888, 892. Some of these programs are conducted jointly with the adult congregate living facility. Volunteers are used in the activities programs as well. T. 869. The quality of the activities program is directly related to the numbers of staff persons involved in the program. T. 871. The Jacksonville facility provides respite care of about two weeks in duration, although it could be longer. T 872. The adult congregate living facility that would be a part of the Health Quest facility would have tee same beneficial consequences as the adult congregate living facility proposed by Hillsborough Healthcare. T. 902-04. The Jacksonville facility is often used as a place for continuing nursing education for high schools or the local nursing association. T. 906-07. Staffing Health Quest proposes a total of 59.75 FTE's or .679 FTE per bed. H.Q. Ex. 2, table 11. Health Quest acknowledged that the staffing proposed for the 88 bed facility was adequate in 1986 when prepared, but by 1987, it was experiencing the need for more licensed personnel, and that it would increase licensed personnel for the 88 bed facility now. T. 630. No evidence was presented as to the specific changes that would be made. T. 632. Construction and facility design Health Quest proposed in its application to construct 34 two bed rooms, 6 three bed rooms, and 2 one bed rooms. H.Q. Ex. 2, table 17. Health Quest wants to change its design, if built, to make the three bed rooms into two bed rooms. T. 631. Health Quest proposes to provide 240 square feet of net living space for semiprivate two bed rooms. H.Q. Ex. 2. Health Quest proposes to provide a total of 37,263 square feet for the 88 bed facility, or 423 square feet per bed. H.Q. Ex. 2. Health Quest estimates that the project will need 3 to 4 acres of land, and projects that it can acquire the land for about $320,000. H.Q. Ex. 2; 634. This estimate is reasonable in comparison to the estimates of all other applicants. Health Quest has constructed three nursing homes in Florida, and others in Indiana and Illinois, and thus has substantial experience in construction. Photographs of the nursing homes constructed and now operated by Health Quest show that those nursing homes are reasonably attractive and appear to be hospitable places in which to live. H.Q. Ex. 22. Availability of resources Health Quest has access to sufficient funds to construct the project and initially operate it. T. 586-87. Financial feasibility The Health Quest proposal is financially feasible in the short term and the long term. T. 593 Summary of comparative data The space and costs associated with the four proposals may be compared as follows: Appl. Cost/Bed NetFt/Bed TotFt/bed Cost/NetFtBed Cost/TotFtBed Careage $34,583 214 306 $162 $113 Forum $44,551 228 408 $195 $109 HealthQ $34,719 240 423 $147 $ 82 HillsH $28,063 185 283 $152 $ 99 The proposed staffing of the four proposals may be compared as follows: Applicant Total FTE RN FTE LPN FTE RN Asst FTE No. Beds Careage 96.0 11.9 7.4 42.1 120 Forum 37.6 5.3 3.6 14.00 60 HealthQ 60.75 4.8 2.2 25.00 88 HillsH 64.65 2.92 8.78 36.61 120 Staffing per proposed bed may further be compared as follows: TotalFTE Applicant Per Bed PN FTE Per Bed RN & LPN FTE Per Bed Total Nursing FTE Per Bed Careage .80 .10 .16 .51 Forum .63 .08 .15 .38 HealthQ .69 .05 .08 .36 HillsH .54 .02 .10 .40 Comparison of the Careage staffing to other applicants is difficult because Careage proposes primarily to serve patients needing skilled nursing care who thus require more nursing staff per bed. Forum Group, Hillsborough Healthcare, and Health Quest are relatively the same with respect to anticipated efficiencies and continuity of care due to the association of adult congregate living facility beds with the proposed nursing home. Forum Group plans only 30 ACLF beds, but also plans 120 independent living apartments. Hillsborough proposes to provide 60 ACLF beds, and Health Quest proposes to have 124 ACLF beds. There is no evidence in the record to determine the optimum mix of ACLF beds to nursing home beds. Conclusions of Law The Division of Administrative hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this proceeding. The Department's free form preliminary decision The free form decision of the agency is ordinarily not dispositive since a formal administrative hearing is intended to formulate agency action, and is not intended to review prior action. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The reasoning of the agency in its free form decision, however, ordinarily is a significant matter to be considered in the formal hearing. Findings of fact with respect to the free form decision-making upon the applications in this batching cycle have been made for two reasons: the assertion that the free form decision was influenced by considerations other than objective merit of the applications, and therefore not entitled to any persuasive effect upon this formal hearing, and representations in the free form stage made by Careage relevant to evaluation of the application of Careage. The free form decision in this case had the appearance of having been influenced in part by considerations other than the objective merit of the applications. For this reason, the free form decision with respect to these applicants has been disregarded as having no persuasive weight. Need calculated pursuant to rule 10-5.001(1)(k)2 Need for community nursing home beds is calculated pursuant to the need methodology set forth in rule 10- 5.011(1)(k)2, Fla. Admin. Code. The text of the rule is not in evidence, but comparison of the text of the rule referenced in proposed recommended orders indicates that the parties appear to agree that the rule promulgated on November 24, 1986, should govern this case. It is that rule that will be used in this recommended order. All parties agree that July 1, 1989, is the date upon which subdistrict need for community nursing home beds is to be determined. The first step in the need calculation pursuant to the rule is to determine BA. BA is defined by subparagraph 2a of the rule as the estimated bed rate for the population age 65-74 years in the relevant district. Subparagraph 2b of the rule provides: BA= LB/(POPC + (6 X POPD)) Where: LB is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant district. POPC is the current population age 65-74 years. POPD is the current population age 75 years and over. LB is at least 5,964, and is 6,060 if the 96 beds at the Home Association are, on this record, classified as community nursing home beds. Section 651.118(8), Fla. Stat. (1987) provides in part: This section shall not preclude a continuing care provider form applying to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a certificate of need for community nursing home beds or a combination of community and sheltered nursing home beds. Any nursing home bed located in a continuing care facility that is or has been issued for nonrestrictive use shall retain its legal status as a community nursing home bed unless the provider requests a change in status. Any nursing home bed located in a continuing care facility and not issued as a sheltered nursing home bed prior to 1979 shall be classified as a community bed. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services may require continuing care facilities to submit bed utilization reports for the purpose of determining community and sheltered nursing home bed inventories based on historical utilization by residents and nonresidents. (E.S.) The first sentence of this statutory section does not apply to the Home Association because it has not applied for a certificate of need. The second sentence does not apply because there is no evidence in the record that the nursing home beds at the Home Association were "issued" by anyone. The third sentence applies because the 96 nursing home beds at the Home Association were "not issued as a sheltered nursing home bed prior to 1979." The Home Association has existed since 1899 with its 96 nursing home beds, and never had a certificate of need. There was no statutory authority or definition for the issuance of a "sheltered nursing home" prior to 1979. By operation of law (the third sentence quoted above), the 96 beds are community nursing home beds. The fourth sentence appears to be directly in conflict with the third sentence. The fourth sentence states that HRS can conduct a study of historical utilization "for the purpose of determining community and sheltered nursing home bed inventories based on historical utilization by residents and nonresidents." The third sentence automatically confers community nursing home bed status upon certain beds based solely upon three criteria (located in a continuing care facility, located there before 1979, and not "issued" as a sheltered nursing home bed). Community nursing home bed status is thus conferred solely upon the three criteria, and historical utilization is irrelevant to the third sentence. If that is so, the fourth sentence, which allows HRS to "determine" community nursing home status based only upon historical utilization, is in direct conflict with the third sentence. This seemingly irreconcilable dilemma is not at issue in this case, however, because there is insufficient credible evidence in the record as to the "historical utilization" of the 96 beds at the Home Association. As discussed in the findings of fact, there is no credible evidence in this record as to how the 96 beds at the Home Association have in fact been "utilized" since 1899. Indeed, the only logical inference on this ambiguous record is that the Home Association has not felt itself constrained by any definitional categories, given its longevity in the Tampa Bay area. It thus is concluded as a matter of law, pursuant to the third sentence of section 651.118(8), Fla. Stat. (1987), that the 96 beds at the Home Association are community nursing home beds, and thus should be counted in the licensed beds in the district and subdistrict, LB and LBD. Thus, the correct value for LB in this case as of June 1, 1986, is 6,060. Next, the values of POPC and POPD must be determined Two issues arise with respect to ascertainment of the values of POPC and POPD. The first is whether the values of POPC and POPD should be determined on January 1, 1986, or on July 1, 1986. The second is whether the values of POPC and POPD should be determined based upon the Governor's estimates and projections of populations released on July 1, 1986, or on May 12, 1987. The first issue is governed by the clear language of the existing rule. The second issue has no clear guidance in the existing rule, and thus depends upon analysis of the record basis of the agency's incipient policy. With respect to the first issue, the parties urge that POPC and POPD are the populations on January 1, 1986, rather than on July 1, 1986. The basis of this argument is the inconsistent behavior of HRS over the last three years and in the January, 1987, batching cycle, wherein the values of POPC and POPD were often effectively determined on a date six months prior to the commencement of the batching cycle, a date which was the midpoint in the occupancy rate months. Notwithstanding the inconsistent manner in which HRS has interpreted its rules, a fundamental principle of law is that if the rule is clear, the agency must follow it. Kearse v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 474 So.2d 819, 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Woodley v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 505 So.2d 676, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987);. There is no deference to the agency's interpretation of law (in this case, the conflicting interpretation of the office of comprehensive health planning) where the construction is based upon common meanings. Schoettle v. State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 513 So.2d 1299, 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Roberts v. Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, 509 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In this case the Department has elected to follow the clear mandate of its own rule. This is not an occasion where the inconsistency of the agency with respect to incipient policy implicates questions of fairness to those regulated. Here, despite the arguable unfairness to the applicants in this batching cycle, the agency should follow its own clear rules. The populations POPC and POPD are clearly intended by the rule to be determined as of the date of the applications for certificate of need and the date of commencement of the batching cycle. The rule unequivocally calls for a projection of need "three years" into the future. T. 1254, 1250. There is no disagreement that the end date of that projection is July 1, 1989. What ends must have had a beginning. A three year period that ends on June 1, 1989, begins on July 1, 1986. Moreover, the rule clearly establishes the value of LB, licensed beds, as of June 1, 1986. The bedrate, the driving force in determining need, is the ratio of licensed beds as of June 1, 1986, to POPC and POPD, populations of elderly persons assumed to be using the beds. If LB was determined on June 1, 1986, but POPC and POPD determined on January 1, 1986, the ratio would be incongruent. The Department undoubtedly intended there to be a correlation between beds and people in existence at the same time since the result is supposed to be a model of need. Selection of the numerator from one date and the denominator for another date results in a fractured reality having little bearing upon the issue of whether the elderly in Hillsborough County will have enough or too may nursing home beds in July, 1989. Finally, the definition "current" populations POPC and POPD was established by the final order in Manor Care of Hillsborough County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1102, DOAH case number 86-0051. The final order in that case, entered on February 7, 1987, determined that POPC and POPD must be the populations current on the date of application for the certificate of need. For these reasons, POPC and POPD should be the populations on July 1, 1986. The next issue is the source of those population estimates. HRS argues that POPC and POPD must be derived from the July 1, 1986, release of the Governor's estimates and projections of populations. HRS has failed to establish guidance in this area by rule, and instead has chosen to rely upon evolving agency policy as the basis for selecting the source off POPC and POPD. An agency need not adopt all policy as a rule, but to the extent that it relies upon non-rule incipient policy as a basis for decision and that decision is challenged in a formal administrative hearing, the agency has the burden to establish in the record "adequate support for its decision." Florida Cities Water Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 384 So.2d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 1980); Baxter's Asphalt and Concrete, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, et al., 475 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 582-584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The only support offered by HRS for its incipient policy to use population releases available at the time of certificate of need application was that those releases were the only ones available at such time, and thus necessarily the agency's preliminary decision had to be based upon the earlier release. This may be a permissible construction of the enabling statutes, and might pass muster as an agency rule, but HRS has in this case elected to defend its policy on a case by case basis. On this record, it is clear that the policy has not been adequately supported and is unreasonable. While reliance upon the population release available at this time of preliminary agency action is obviously reasonable at that time, since it is then the most current release, the mere fact that it is the only release-then available is an inadequate reason for continuing to use that release at the de novo formal administrative hearing that follows. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Moreover, the inadequacy of HRS's basis for its incipient policy has been demonstrated in this record. The May 12, 1987, release is substantially more accurate than the release a year earlier. The May 12, 1987, release is much closer to observed population growth in the subdistrict than the earlier release. These facts were not rebutted. To underscore the inadequacy of HRS's incipient policy, it bears repeating that use of the July 1, 1986, population release underestimates the net need for community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County in July, 1989, by 100 percent. This indicates that something is dramatically wrong with the incipient policy. For these reasons, the values of POPC and POPD should be taken from the May 12, 1987, release of population estimates. POPC is 134,968 and POPD is 94,402. The calculation of the bed rate, BA, thus is as follows: BA= LB/(POPC + (6 X POPD)) BA= 6,060/134,968 + (6 X 94,402)) BA= 0.0086401 The next step in the calculation is to calculate BB, which is defined as the estimated bed rate for the population age 75 years and over in the relevant district. The calculation is provided in subparagraph 2c of the rule: BB= 6 X BA BB= 6 X 0.0086401 BB= 0.0518406 Subparagraph 2a of the rule then requires calculation of A, which is gross need for the horizon year: A= (POPA X BA) + (POPB X BB) Where: A is the district's projected age-adjusted total number of community nursing home beds for the review cycle for which a projection is being made. POPA is the population age 65-74 years in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. POPB is the population age 75 years and older in the relevant departmental district projected three years into the future. For the reasons discussed with respect to selection of the date of the proper release of Governor's population estimates and projections with respect to POPC and POPD, POPA and POPB should be obtained from the May 12, 1987, Governor's release. POPA is 149,771 and POPB is 108,400. Therefore, continuing the calculation: A= (POPA X BA) + (POPB X BB) A= (149,771 X 0.0086401) + (108,400 X 0.0518406) A= 1,294.0364 + 5,619.521 A= 6,913.5574 The next step is to calculate SA, which is the preliminary subdistrict allocation of community nursing home beds pursuant to paragraph 2d of the rule: SA A X (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) Where: * * * LBD is the number of licensed community nursing home beds in the relevant subdistrict. OR is the average occupancy rate for all licensed community nursing home beds within the subdistrict of the relevant district. Review of the applications submitted for the July batching cycle shall be based upon occupancy rate data for the months October- March preceding that cycle . . . * * * LBD is 2,708 since the 96 beds at the Home Association were community nursing home beds in Hillsborough County on June 1, 1986. OR is 94.29 Therefore, SA is calculated: SA= A X (LBD/LB) x (OR/.90) SA= 6,913.5574 x (2,708/6,060) x (.9429/.90) SA= 6,913.5574 X 0.4468646 X 1.0476666 SA= 3,236.6863 SA= 3,237 In the last sentence of subparagraph 2 of the rule, the "poverty adjustment" is described as follows: "In districts with a high proportion of elderly residents living in poverty, the methodology specifies a minimum bed rate." In this case, all parties agree that when the numbers are assigned to the values in the formula contained in subparagraph 2e of the rule, the poverty adjustment operates to reduce rather than enlarge the net bed need. Thus, in this case, strict application of the A formula found in subparagraph 2e fails to produce the intended "minimum" bed rate. HRS construes the rule, in this instance, to mean that the poverty adjustment does not apply, T. 1280, and all parties agree. This will be treated as a stipulation by all parties that the poverty adjustment is not an issue in this case. For this reason, the poverty adjustment will not be used in the calculations in this recommended order. The final step in the need calculation is defined by subparagraph 2i of the rule, and that is to calculate the net bed allocation for the subdistrict. Subparagraph 2i provides: The net bed allocation for a subdistrict, which is the number of beds available for Certificate of Need approval, is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed and 90 percent of the approved beds within the relevant departmental subdistrict from the bed allocation determined under subparagraphs through I. unless the subdistrict's average estimated occupancy rate for the most recent six months is less than 80 percent, in which case the net bed allocation is zero. All parties agree that the number of licensed beds within the subdistrict is determined as of June 1, 1986, for this batching cycle. That number for purposes of determining net need is 2,708. The number of approved beds for purposes of determining net need is 368. Net need for community nursing home beds in the subdistrict for July 1, 1989, is thus determined: Net Need = SA - (LBD + (.9 X AB)) Net Need = 3,237 - (2,708 + (.9 X 368)) Net Need = 3,237 - 3,039.2 Net Need = 197.8 Net Need = 198 Thus, on July 1, 1989, the subdistrict, Hillsborough County, will need 198 community nursing home beds. Evidence of "not normal" need Rule 10-5.011(k)2.j. provides criteria for approval of community nursing home certificates of need "in the event that the net bed allocation [pursuant to the rule formula] is zero . . ." The net bed allocation pursuant to the rule method is not zero in this case. Subparagraph 2j thus does not apply. The Petitioners did not present any evidence of need pursuant to the special criteria of subparagraph 2j of the rule. Rule 10-5.011(k)1. Provides: 1. Department Goal. The Department will consider applications for community nursing home beds in context with applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional community nursing home beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of community nursing home beds in that departmental service district to exceed the number of community nursing home beds in the subdistricts designated by local health councils. (E.S.) Many other HRS need rules have the same "not normal" loophole, and in all of these other cases, the applicants are thereby given the opportunity to show exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of additional beds by consideration of various aspects of the statutory criteria. Since subparagraph 2j does not apply, the provisions of subparagraph 1 do apply to grant a similar opportunity. The only other credible or competent evidence presented by the Petitioners as to a "not normal" condition of need was evidence concerning the numbers of elderly residents in the subdistrict and the occupancy rates of existing community nursing homes. These factors have already been accounted for in the rule formula, and cannot be counted again. Health Quest Realty, XII v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 477 So.2d 576, 578-79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) Amendment or update of applications Rule 10-5.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code, provides that "[s]ubsequent to an application being deemed complete by the Office of Health Planning and Development, no further information or amendment will be accepted by the Department." (E.S.) The rule states that the Department will accept no information after the application is deemed complete. The words used are not ambiguous or unclear. Thus, if normal rules of construction were to be followed, the conclusion would be drawn that the Department is bound by its own clear rule, and cannot, by interpretation, add exceptions. But an equally valid rule of construction is that absurd results must be avoided. Certificate of need cases, particular ones like the case at bar, are highly competitive and complicated. The review of these applications by HRS was delayed for months beyond the normal review period. Further delay has occurred in discovery and preparation for the lengthy formal administrative hearing. Time changes all, and over this period of time, new data has come to the attention of all parties. It would be absurd `to require the applicants to prove applications that have become erroneous due to the passage of time. It is highly probable that rule 10-5.008(3) was originally drafted with only the free form review of an application for a certificate of need in mind, and that the application (or non-application) of the rule to an administrative hearing a year or more later was not considered by those who drafted the rule. Indeed, prior to August, 1985, the Department and all litigants uniformly followed the McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) principle of Florida administrative law that formal administrative hearings are de novo, and that new information pertaining to the application is admissible. In August, 1985, the case of Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) was decided. While the Gulf Court decision was concerned only with the competitive status of applicants with respect to bed need, in the aftermath of that decision, the Department elected to construe rule 10- 5.008(3) as forbidding practically all new information, even information that had nothing to do with bed need. This undoubtedly was an overreaction to the Gulf Court decision, but the Department, after all, has always had the authority to establish rules governing the processing of applications for certificates of need, including the number and timing of amendments to such applications. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Given the fact that the rule is so clear, the better route would have been to amend the rule. As discussed above, conventional rules of statutory construction could easily support the legal conclusion that the rule must be applied as it is written, without further interpretation. Nonetheless, the Department for this case has chosen the other route, to interpret rather than to amend its rule. While the question is a close one, the Hearing Officer has concluded that it would be better to ignore the clear words of the rule, and attempt to apply the evolving interpretative policy of the Department to avoid an absurd result. The following appear to be the existing final orders of the Department interpreting rule 10-5.008(3), and its predecessor, published in the Florida Administrative Law Reports. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, 8 F.A.L.R. 4650 (September 24, 1986); Arbor Health Care Company, Inc., d/b/a Martin Health Center, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 709 (October 13, 1986); Mease Hospital and Clinic v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 159 (October 13, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Collier County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 5883 (December 8, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Nursing Center of Highlands County, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1081 (December 8, 1986); Manatee Mental Health Center, Inc. d/b/a Manatee Crisis Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1430 (February 2, 1987); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Hillsborough, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1630 (February 5, 1987); Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1628 (March 2, 1987); Psychiatric Institutes of America, Inc., d/b/a Psychiatric Institute of Orlando v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1626a (March 5, 1987); Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2139 (March 24, 1987); Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2110 (April 17, 1987); Hialeah Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2363 (May 1, 1987); Palms Residential Treatment Center, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Palms Residential Treatment Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 10 F.A.L.R. 1425 (February 15, 1988) These final orders contain the following statements concerning the Department's interpretation of rule 10-5.008(3) and its evolving policy with respect to changes to applications for certificates of need during section proceedings and admissibility of new information not contained in the original applications: Health Care and Retirement, supra, 8 F.A.L.R. at 4651: During 120.57 proceedings, an application may be updated to address facts extrinsic to the application such as interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories. An applicant is not allowed to update by adding additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS. Manatee Mental Health Center, supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 1431: . . . HRS has authority by statute to issue a CON for an identifiable portion of project. Section 381.494(8)(c), Florida Statutes. MMHC's "amended" proposal reduced the number of beds sought, and was properly considered during the 120.57 proceedings. Manor Care. Inc., supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 2141-42: The amended applications [amended to address needs of Alzheimer's disease patients] changed the scope and character of the proposed facilities and services and thus, must be reviewed initially at HRS . . . [Gulf Court] . . . limited the de novo concept by requiring that evidence of changed circumstances be considered only if relevant to the application. Hialeah Hospital, Inc., 9 F.A.L.R. at 2366: It is recognized that more than a year may pass between the free form decision by HRS and the final 120.57 hearing and this passage of time may require updating an application by evidence of changed circumstances such as the effect of inflation on interest and construction costs. For the sake of clarity HRS would avoid the use of the word "amendment" to describe such updating. Such evidence of changed circumstances beyond the control of the applicant is relevant to the original application and is admissible at the 120.57 hearing. Taking the easiest first, those items explicitly listed by the Department in the first Health Care and Retirement case, "interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories," which change after the application is initially filed, are permitted. Not permitted are "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS." The remainder of the Department's incipient policy, as presently articulated, is extremely obscure. The word "extrinsic" without the list of examples is of little guidance. The application is only an idea on paper. Anything new, other than the bare words on the paper as originally filed, is literally "extrinsic" thereto. The concept of whether the new information changes the "scope and character of the facilities and services" originally reviewed in free form action by the Department is similarly of little guidance because the phrase "scope and character" can mean practically anything. Of fundamental difficulty is whether this phrase is intended to select substantial changes to the original application, or all changes. For example, if the original application proposes separate shower stalls and tubs for double rooms, but the amended application proposes a combination shower and tub, has the "scope and character" of the "facilities and services" changed? The phrase "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS" is similarly vague. What is a service or construction or a concept not originally reviewed? Would this include the change in bathing equipment discussed above? The concept of "control" of the applicant over the information that goes into the original application is the only phrase that gives applicants any guidance. The word "control" probably is intended as a "knew or reasonably should have known" standard. If the applicant reasonably should have known about the information and should have provided the Department with the information as a part of its original application, then the new information cannot be considered during the formal administrative hearing. The Hearing Officer will be guided, thus, by the explicit list of items provided by the Department in the Health Care and Retirement case, and by the concept of "control" provided by the Hialeah case. New information submitted by Forum Group Table 7 of the Forum Group update is for the second year of operation. There was no projection of utilization by class of pay for the second year of operation in Forum Group's original application, and Forum Group presented no evidence to explain why its original application did not or could not forecast utilization by class of pay for the second year of operation. Table 7 of the update, F.G. Ex. 6, thus constitutes an attempt to add matters to the original application which could have been a part of the original application as filed. Pursuant to rule 10-5.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code, it is now excluded from evidence because it is irrelevant. Table 8 of the Forum Group update was not proven by Forum Group to be based upon ordinary inflation. It appears that the revised charges in table 8 were based in part upon a telephone survey of subdistrict nursing homes conducted after Forum Group filed its original application. Forum Group did not prove that it could not reasonably have conducted such a telephone survey before it filed its original application. Thus, table 8 of F.G. Ex. 6 contravenes rule 10-5.008(3) and now is excluded from evidence because it is irrelevant to the original application. Table 10 of the Forum Group update was precisely the kind of new information allowed by the incipient policy of the Department. The old table 10 had an opening date of January, 1988, a date that was obviously in error due to the delay in decision in these cases. The new information was simply the old information altered by current occupancy and fillup rates in the subdistrict, data that could not have been acquired when the original application was filed. "Current occupancies" is explicitly listed by HRS as permissible new data in the Health Care and Retirement case, supra. Table 10, F.G. Ex. 6, is admitted into evidence. The revised table 11 contains positions for a dietary supervisor, maintenance supervisor, and utility workers, all of which could have been reported in the original table 11. These portions of table 11 are excluded from evidence. The revised table 11 contains changes in the FTE's for registered nurses and licensed practical nurses. These changes could have been in the original table 11 and are excluded from evidence. The revised table 11 contains changes in salaries that were adequately shown to be the result of inflation and new market data not available at the time the application was deemed complete. These portions of revised table 11 are admitted into evidence. Table 25 of the revised application, F.G. Ex. 6, which summarizes estimated project costs, including construction costs, contains new information permitted by the Department's evolving policy. The new table contains no changes of substance except changes caused by inflation and current construction experience. The bottom line, except to that extent, has not changed in substance. Table 25 of F.G. Ex. 6 is admitted into evidence in its entirety. Revisions to tables 17-20, F.G. Ex. 6, were driven entirely by inflation in construction costs. Surely if the Department allows an applicant to respond to inflation by projections of new costs, the Department's policy would also allow the applicant to respond to inflation by projections of new methods to reduce new costs caused by inflation. These revisions are admitted into evidence. The revised pro forma statement of total operating expenses has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. First, the revision was explained as being based upon changes in utilization by class of pay, but that data, table 7 of the revision, was not admitted into evidence. Moreover, the changes in total operating expenses resulted from impermissible changes in the numbers of FTE's which have been excluded from evidence. It is not possible on this record to determine how much of the revised pro forma statement of total operating expenses has been shown to be a credible projection, given the lack of these fundamental sources of the projection. Moreover, the revision to total operating expenses in the revised pro forma, F.G. Ex. 6, has not been credibly shown to be based upon matters that Forum Group could not have known at the time it originally filed its application. This conclusion flows from the fact that the original application did not project utilization by class of pay in year 2. Absent this projection, the revision of total operating expenses must necessarily be based upon data that was absent from the original application. The same is true with respect to changes in FTE's in the revision. For these reasons, the revision to total operating expenses in the revised pro forma, F.G. Ex. 6, constitutes an impermissible offer of new data precluded by rule 10-5.008(3). New information submitted by Health Quest Table 8 of the revised application of Health Quest, H.Q. Ex. 3, was based upon information that Health Quest could have obtained when it filed its original application. Table 8 of H.Q. Ex. 3 is thus excluded from evidence. Table 11 of the revised application was based upon the actual experience acquired after the original application was filed. Table 11 of H.Q. Ex. 3 is admitted into evidence. Table 17 of the original application projected that the facility would have six three-bed rooms, but the revised application deleted all 3 bed rooms. Since Health Quest failed to show that this new information would have been unavailable to it when it filed its original application, the change as to 3 rooms is not admissible. The ineluctable result, therefore, is that all of revised table 17 is inadmissible since the proper mix of beds has not been proven. The change of square footage of 1 bed room to 216 in the revised table 18 is inadmissible because it contravenes rule 10-5.008(3). Evidence as to the agreement with the University Community Physicians Association of Tampa is admissible as matters which did not exist and could not have been a part of the original application. The objections to that testimony, T. 579- 80, are overruled. New information submitted by Careage The changes to the Careage application, C. Exs. 18-23 and 24-25, were shown to be based upon information not reasonably obtainable by Careage when it filed its original application, and thus are admitted into evidence over the objections made that these exhibits were barred by rule 10-5.008(3). New information submitted by Hillsborough Healthcare Hillsborough Healthcare did not submit any changes to its application. Comparative review of the applications Careage failed to prove two essential portions of its application. It did not prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it would in fact operate the proposed facility if the certificate of need were granted, and it did not prove by credible evidence that it would provide care of good quality. For these reasons, the Careage application should be denied. The other applicants proved by credible evidence all essential portions of their applications. The only remaining task, therefore, is to determine the proper allocation of the 198 beds needed in July, 1989, among these three applicants. The space and costs associated with the remaining proposals may be compared as follows: Appli Cost/Bed NetFt/Bed TotFt/Bed Cost/NetFtBed Cost/TotFtBed Forum $44,551 228 408 $195 $109 HealthQ $34,719 240 423 $147 $ 82 HillsH $28,063 185 283 $152 $ 99 The cost per net square foot per bed (Cost/NetFtBed) is derived by dividing the cost per bed by the net square feet of living space per bed. Likewise, the cost by total square feet (gross) per bed (Cost/TotFtBed) is derived by the same division. Health Quest is preferable to the other two applicants when these cost and space figures are considered. It provides more space at a lower cost per square foot. The differences between Hillsborough Healthcare and Forum Group are not sufficiently significant to give one preference over the other. Hillsborough Healthcare is the less expensive proposal, but suffers from being the least spacious proposal in comparison to Forum Group. Moreover, the record does not contain guiding policies to determine whether there is a need in Hillsborough County for cheaper, less spacious, nursing homes, or for more expensive, more spacious nursing homes. The proposed staffing of the remaining proposals may be compared as follows: Applicant TotalFTE RN FTE LPN FTE RN Asst FTE No. Bed Forum 37.6 5.3 3.6 14.00 60 HealthQ 60.75 4.8 2.2 25.00 88 HillsH 64.65 2.92 8.78 36.61 120 Staffing per proposed bed may further be compared as follows: Total FTE Applicant Per Bed RN FTE Per Bed RN & LPN FTE Per Bed Total Nursing FTE Per Bed Forum .63 .08 .15 .38 HealthQ .69 .05 .08 .36 HillsH .54 .02 .10 .40 The total nursing FTE per bed for each applicant is relatively equal, with Hillsborough Healthcare having the highest ratio and Health Quest the lowest. Forum Group has significantly more RN's and LPN's per bed than Health Quest, but the overall nursing staffing is comparable. Hillsborough Healthcare is the lowest when only RN's and LPN's are considered, and the lowest total FTE per bed. The differences noted in staffing do not appear to be sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions. Hillsborough Healthcare's facility may be staffed at a less costly level, but whether this is due to substitution of nursing assistants for RN's and LPN's, or a result of efficiencies due to the larger number of beds (120), or reflects less than optimum staffing cannot be determined on this record. Hillsborough did not present evidence as to staffing patterns for a 60 bed facility. Other features of the proposals of the three applicants provide little to distinguish or rank them in priority. All three propose to associate the nursing facility with an adult congregate living facility, resulting in cost efficiencies and better continuity of care. All three have a substantial track record in the operation of a nursing homes, and can be expected to provide care of good quality. All three have very substantial resources and prior experience in the development and initial operation of a nursing home. If any distinction were to be made, perhaps it would be to favor the Hillsborough Healthcare application over the Forum Group application. Hillsborough Healthcare plans to serve the needs of Alzheimer's patients, and Forum Group does not. Hillsborough Healthcare's application is, relative to the Forum Group proposal, less expensive. On the other hand, the Alzheimer's disease unit is only a marginal factor since there is no qualified evidence in this record of need for that type of unit in 1989 in Hillsborough County. One can only infer that the need is probably going to be there, and it might be better to prefer Hillsborough over Forum Group for that reason. The "luxury" vs. "austerity" comparison is similarly not of ultimate persuasive weight since, as discussed above, there is no credible evidence in the record as to what the proper mix should be. Of course, it is safe to conclude that the need for less expensive nursing care is greater than the need for care that only a few can afford, but that conclusion does not necessarily result in the total denial of the Forum Group application. In summary, with respect to the question as to which applicant should be favored with approval of the most number of beds from the projected bed need, there is no major issue to adequately distinguish between the three applicants. For this reason, each applicant should be treated as equally as possible consistent with the application it submitted and the evidence it presented in support of that application. The Department appears to have several relatively reasonable ways to allocate bed need among the three applicants. It might simply divide the beds equally among the three. This alternative is less reasonable because it would ignore the detailed proof that has been presented by both Forum Group and Health Quest in support of proposed facilities of 60 beds and 88 beds respectively, and would result in implementation of facilities having staffing and design configuration that would be altered from that proof. A second alternative would be to award partial approval to Health Quest for 78 beds, to award full approval to Hillsborough Healthcare for 120 beds, and to deny the application of Forum Group. A third alternative would be to award partial approval to Health Quest for 78 beds, to award partial approval to Hillsborough Healthcare for 60 beds, and to award full approval to Forum Group for 60 beds. This third alternative is more reasonable and will be recommended by this order. This alternative has the advantage of fostering the most future competition in Hillsborough County by approving three competitors rather than two. Of the three applicants, Health Quest proposed the most space, relatively speaking, for the least cost. The staffing proposed by Health Quest is reasonable in comparison to the other two applicants. Reduction of the Health Quest proposal to 78 beds from 88 beds is a relatively minor reduction; stated another way, the proof provided by Health Quest as to the specifics of an 88 bed facility is likely to be changed only slightly for a 78 bed facility. Forum Group proved all of the details of its 60 bed proposal, and thus approval of those beds would be entirely consistent with its application and proof in this record. Hillsborough Healthcare did not prove the specifics of a 60 bed partially approved facility except that such a facility would contain the full sized Alzheimer's patient unit proposed in its 120 bed facility. It would be fairer to approve Hillsborough for that 60 bed facility than to approve Hillsborough for 120 beds, leaving Forum Group with denial of its application, given the lack of a compelling clear choice between the two applicants. Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order partially granting the application of Health Quest for 78 community nursing home beds, partially granting the application of Hillsborough Healthcare for 60 community nursing home beds, fully granting the application of Forum Group for 60 community nursing home beds, and denying the application of Careage. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOS. 87-0670, 87-0671, and 87-0774 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact contained in this appendix are adopted as findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by HRS: 1-2. These proposed findings of fact are' subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The classification of the Home Association beds has been thoroughly discussed in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The correct population figures are discussed in the findings of fact. 9-13. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 15. The changes to table 7 were not the result of a telephone survey. T. 51. 17. Defining "extrinsic circumstances" as not inclusive of economic or market changes that occurred after the original application was deemed to have been complete, or otherwise not reasonably obtainable or knowable by the applicant when the original application was filed, is contrary to HRS policy embodied in final orders, sketchy as it may be. 18, 23-25. Rejected as explained in the findings of fact. 26, 28. Rejected with respect to table 11 as explained in the findings of fact. 30. This finding of fact, while true, is not made because Health Quest made no such change to its 88 bed application. Rule 10-5.008(1) simply states that the application for a certificate of need must be filed on form 1455. Table 12 of the form has no instructions for what must be contained therein. Since HRS has not demonstrated on this record that table 12 in the original application was supposed to have listed these items, it cannot be said that the listing of these items in the new table 12 is a change. It is noted that spaces to take showers, baths, store linen, and for nursing stations would be assumed for any nursing home, and ought not be presumed to have been excluded by the failure of an applicant to list them. Moreover, it is further noted that from a review of the original application H.Q. Ex. 1 that table 12 does include nursing administrative space, patient lounges, a central supply space, general storage, housekeeping, and laundry. Moreover, the amendment, H.Q. Ex. 2, shows the following spaces on the space diagram: laundry, shower, patient lounge, and medication room (med). Any bed room could be used for isolation. Table 20 does include a chapel. H.Q. Ex. 1. Not supported by the record cited. Findings of fact proposed by Forum Group: 1-4, 9, 13. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 5. LB of 5,964, as proposed by the Department, is most credible as the beginning figure, without considering the beds at the Home Association. 7-8, 10. Incorrect value for LB. 11. OR should be 94.29 with the Home Association beds. 18. Incorrect values for LB and OR. 21. The denial occurred orally in January, 1987. The update has been discussed in findings of fact and conclusions of law. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. It is true that there is need and the need must be satisfied. 29-33. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 34. The phrase "homelike atmosphere" is too vague to be a finding of fact. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to make a finding as to the history of Forum Group with respect to the quality of care provided at Forum Group facilities. 49-50. The update with respect to financial feasibility is not relevant since essential parts of the update with respect to financial feasibility were not admitted into evidence. 60, 65, 67, 68, 74, and 80. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 66. This is not relevant. Ms. Kennedy testified that she had authority from Hillsborough Healthcare to accept a certificate of need for a 60 bed nursing home. There is no credible evidence to contradict this statement under oath. The lack of a written partnership authorization in evidence does not negate this statement. 76. Had there been any credible evidence in theme cases that the amount of need in Hillsborough County was minimal and that, consequently, the pro formas for 60 bed nursing-homes must be closely scrutinized for long term financial feasibility, then it would be relevant that CSI did not explain in detail the pro forma for a 60 bed nursing home. CSI did, however, present expert opinion that a 60 bed nursing home would be financially feasible, and on this record, the opinion is very credible. Forum Group and Health Quest have shown the long term financial feasibility of a 60 bed nursing home, and there is a large amount of need. Moreover, existing nursing homes are experiencing very high occupancy rates and fill up rates. For these reasons, this proposed finding of fact, while true, is not relevant. Hillsborough did show that its design was modular. Scaling down the project simply means deletion of one wing. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The witness specifically addressed two portions of the state health plan. T. 777. The testimony was competent and substantial evidence. The inference that the certificate of need was "about to expire" is inappropriate since the witness's testimony leads to the inference that Health Quest intends to proceed with that project. T. 641. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 98-99. These proposed findings of fact are true, but insufficient to support a finding that Health Quest lacks the resources to construct and operate this project in the short term. 101, 105-07. These proposed findings of fact are true, but do not lead to the conclusion that the construction cost estimates are unreasonable. See T. 590. Mr. Krisher had sufficient expertise in health planning, nursing home development, and financial feasibility, to testify generally as to these matters. T. 501-516. No party presented any independent evidence to seriously question these estimates. 102. This proposed finding of fact is incorrect since the expected Medicaid rate in Boca Raton is different from the expected rate in Tampa. T. 785. 111. Not supported by the record cited. 114-116, 118-120. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. True, but insufficient to show lack of resources to make the project financially feasible in the short term. Irrelevant. The existence of lines of credit was proved by Mr. Gentle. Irrelevant. The staffing was shown to be reasonable by the testimony of other competent witnesses. 125-27. True, but insufficient to show back of financial feasibility. 129. True, but irrelevant. It would be unreasonable and a waste of health care resources for an applicant to have to buy five expensive acres of urban land to be qualified to apply for a certificate of need. 130-31. Irrelevant. The delay and inflation rates are negligible. Findings of fact proposed by Hillsborough Healthcare: 1. This is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 5. The phrasing of the first and second sentences is rejected for lack of evidence. 7. The evidence is not sufficient to show actual bias by a preponderance of the evidence. 8-9, 19-20, 22-23. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. These proposed findings of fact are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 21. Irrelevant. 24. True, but not relevant. These matters are covered by the numeric need rule. 29. The evidence does not show that CSI managed facilities offer "superior" activities. 32, 33 (fifth and sixth sentences), 35 (last sentence), 38(a)-(i), 40,42 (first sentence), 39, 45 (second and third sentences), 46 (all but the first sentence), 49 (first two sentences), 53, 56 (all but the first two sentences), and 60-72. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. These proposed findings of fact ace true, however, and are adopted by reference. 51. The preponderance of the evidence does not credibly show that the floor plan promotes patient safety and convenience, or that travel distances are minimal. 54. Not supported by the record cited. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. A finding of fact that the criminal offense of perjury was committed cannot be made since there is no evidence of a criminal conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. The testimony of Ms. Etten was not limited to those programs. The documents used in cross examination were never properly authenticated, and are hearsay. Thus, a finding of fact that the documents are in fact surveys of Careage facilities by other agencies in other states cannot be made based upon the documents. For this reason, the remainder of the proposed finding is not relevant. Ms. Etten credibly testified that nursing staffing was generally adequate. Her opinion was not ultimately limited to special programs. T. 1216. The inability of other witnesses to testify on this point is not relevant. The ability of Careage to recruit staff was adequately proved by other parties. There is no credible evidence in this record to believe that any applicant fail to recruit adequate staff. The recruitment plans of Careage appear to be quite reasonable. T. 1562-64. On pages 1686-87 of the transcript, the Hearing Officer ruled that the expert opinion of Ms. Krueger would be allowed even though it was based on hearsay. This was a correct ruling. Section 90.704, Fla. Stat. (1987). The sentence immediately following that ruling is incorrect as stated, and directly contradicts the initial correct ruling. That is, an expert opinion is admissible and may be relied upon even though based upon evidence, such as hearsay, which in itself may not be admissible. Further, the opinion of an expert in an administrative proceeding is a proper basis for a finding of fact even though the opinion is based upon hearsay, and even though hearsay alone in an administrative hearing, absent nonhearsay evidence on the point, is not sufficient as a basis for a finding of fact. The second sentence in the transcript was intended to state that hearsay evidence alone will not be the basis of a finding of fact, setting aside for the moment the issue of expert opinion. For these reasons, these proposed findings of fact are rejected to the extent that they urge that short term financial feasibility was not established because the opinion was premised upon hearsay evidence. With respect to the unaudited financial statement question, Ms. Krueger was not asked whether experts in her field reasonably rely upon unaudited financial statements. She was only asked which type was more worthy of belief and whether her profession feels they can rely on audited statements. She was never asked whether her profession feels it cannot rely upon unaudited statements. Ms. Krueger stated that she was aware of the existence of fraudulent audited statements, implying that the question leads to answers that are not that useful. T. 1652. In fact, Ms. Krueger, who was a thoroughly credible witness, explaining her opinions in a lucid and reasonable manner, relied upon unaudited statements, as well as her conversations with several of the chief executive officers of Careage. Based on this record, a finding cannot be made that experts in this field do not reasonably rely from time to time upon unaudited financial statements. The authenticity of the letter from SeaFirst is irrelevant since that line of credit was established by the direct testimony of Mr. Gentle. T. 1576. Ms. Krueger's lack of personal knowledge as to the existence of a binding commitment for a loan for this project is irrelevant due to Mr. Gentle's direct testimony. The evidence in the record from all parties indicates that land is generally available in Hillsborough County in the 3 to 5 acre range, that 3 to 5 acres is about what is needed for any of the projects, and that the cost is from $300,000 to $600,000. The Careage facility will bring in over $3 million in gross revenue per year in all years beyond the first few. A few hundred thousand dollars can be amortized over the life of a nursing home, and will not be a significant factor in long range financial feasibility. All of the applicants have access to credit to buy land at market rates. There is essentially no reasonable dispute as to land acquisition and cost in this case. The testimony related to equipment , not floor space, for technology dependent children. Those children would be served in the subacute beds. Space for Alzheimer's patients was included in the floor plan and the 45,500 square feet. T. 1136-37. Mr. Cushing testified that the Means reference book might project a cost per square foot in the "60's." He did not adopt that as his opinion. T. 1185-86. Delay in construction for 8 months is not such delay as to necessarily result in substantial increases in construction cost. The last sentence is true but does not account for the fact that Mr. Cushing consulted the Means reference book for labor rates. That is sufficient. The remainder of the reasoning of this proposed finding of fact was rejected in paragraph 85 above. Rejected as described in the preceding paragraphs. Ms. Krueger's expertise with respect to salaries was established perhaps more completely than any other expert witness. She not only had first hand knowledge from her work reviewing salaries in nearby counties, but she consulted expert reference materials. Her inability to remember the name of the book referenced does not seriously undermine her expertise. The ruling at T. 1324 sustained an objection to a question. It was not a ruling upon the admissibility of portions of the document. Ms. Krueger prepared the long range plan section of C. Ex. 3, P. 3-7, and the under served groups section, p. 3-8, in conjunction with Mr. Gentle. T. 1322. This is sufficient predicate for her testimony as to these matters. 91-92. The telephone survey was not a needs survey. It only surveyed existing services. The survey has essentially been discounted because of lack of response and lack of statistical reliability. These proposed findings ace adopted by reference. Since none of this testimony has been relied upon in this recommended order, the proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. The testimony as to lines of credit and resources of the Lynns was enough to establish the availability of working capital. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. Rejected as explained in the findings of fact. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. 101. The continuing objection was allowed, not granted. T. 595-96. Otherwise, these proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference. 102-103. These proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference. 104. Essentially irrelevant as explained with respect to proposed findings of fact concerning the land acquisition and preparation costs of other applicants. 105-107. These proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference, except the last clause of the last sentence of proposed finding of fact 105. Absent quantitative data and a study of salaries showing the estimates to be substantially in error, the foregoing proposed findings of fact are not sufficient to show an error affecting financial feasibility. 108-109. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant since the 60 bed application was not a permissible amendment. These proposed findings of fact are true and are adopted by reference. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant since these are different health districts having different patient payor mixes. Findings of fact proposed by Health Quest: 4, 5, 7-10. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 11-17. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The rationality of the OCHP's policy is irrelevant since it conflicts with the rule and other policies are also rational. A finding of a consistent pattern with respect to base date populations in the award of certificates of need cannot be made as discussed in the findings of fact. Mr. Sharp understood his position, and Mr. Jaffe well understood the inconsistencies. 22-23. True but irrelevant. Disadvantage often occurs to some person when the law is correctly applied. 24-28. Rejected as discussed at length elsewhere in this order. 33. Not supported by the record cited. 36.a. Mr. Gentle did not work with Careage in these years and could not be expected to have detailed memory on these points. He named seven such facilities. 38. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 40.b. (ii). There is no evidence that CHP is the same as Careage. 40.c.(v). Health Quest has operated since 1969. 42. Both could be true. 43.a.(ii). Mr. Gentle was not sure because this was not within his area of responsibility. T. 1603. 44. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Dr. Etten's unfamiliarity with the fact that the Health Quest facility in Jacksonville provides IV therapy and total parenteral nutrition does not demonstrate exaggeration or lack of expertise. The record does not clearly demonstrate that other Health Quest nursing homes provide these specific services. The evidence is only that services are generally the same. T. 1077. The testimony concerning Medicaid patients in the subacute unit was elicited on cross examination, and was not presented by the witness as an intended representation by Careage on direct. Ms. Krueger's understanding simply was wrong, not misleading. T. 1367. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact is similarly a red herring. Careage did not project anything more than 37 percent Medicaid utilization. C. Ex. 3, table 7B. It is one thing to expect 37 percent utilization, and another thing to represent that the facility will not discriminate. A promise to not discriminate inherently contains the caveat that a facility will not pursue that noble goal to bankruptcy. The Hearing Officer would not find that to be the case with respect to Careage any more than with respect to Health Quest. Mr. Gentle did not testify that the number of nurses aides in the Alzheimer's unit would be higher in comparison to other sections of the facility. He testified that the number would be "higher" in comparison to professional licensed staff, which would be lesser. T. 1525. 54. Irrelevant. Mr. Gentle said that day care would probably be at a location nearby. T. 1593. 57. None of the parties addressed site size with the specificity proposed by these findings of fact. Lack of such specificity has no real bearing on credibility. The record cited, T. 1526, does not support the proposed finding that equipment for technology dependent children is "substantial and expensive." Thus, the remainder of these proposed findings are rejected. It is true, however, that the application fails to itemize such equipment, and that the contingency is relied upon. There is no evidence that Careage proposes to employ a gerontological nurse practitioner. C. Ex. 3, table 11. The testimony of Dr. Etten simply describe the skills of that form of nurse practitioner. She was never asked whether such professional would be employed by Careage. T. 1217-19. The failure to tie in the testimony is only a human error, and does not show a lack of credibility. Proposed finding of fact 62.a. is not supported by the record. Dr. Etten was not asked to describe the care given an Alzheimer's patient in an ACLF. She was asked to describe the care given a "resident" of an adult congregate living facility. Her comment about such residents not being "bed patients for any period of time" is not a dodge of a question about an Alzheimer's disease patient. Moreover, she credibly and directly testified that Alzheimer's disease manifests itself so many different ways she could not say whether it would be appropriate to have such patients living in an adult congregate living facility. Next, Mr. Gentle's testimony as to the medical characteristics and needs of Alzheimer's patients is insufficient as a basis for findings of fact because Mr. Gentle was not accepted as a medical expert. Health Quest presented no credible evidence to show that an Alzheimer's patient can be treated either in an adult congregate living facility or a conventional nursing home. Absent such evidence, the failure of other parties to rebut the nonexistent negative, given the clear affirmative evidence that Alzheimer's disease patients greatly benefit from special care, is unpersuasive. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. These children would be served as subacute care patients. Precise identification of the area set aside for these children would have been only of marginal relevance. To the extent not adopted elsewhere in this recommended order, these proposed findings are adopted by reference. Careage's expert was clearly aware of the need to review site specific conditions in the preparation of construction plans. T. 1177. He has built nursing homes in many states. His competence to prepare adequate construction plans for Hillsborough County conditions was clearly established in the record. It is true that he had not yet prepared the final construction plans. But no party has presented final construction plans, and thus the lack of such plans is irrelevant on this record. Irrelevant on this record. Irrelevant. The amount of working capital is well within the resources available to Careage. There is no evidence in the record that a variation one way or the other by $100,000 would make the project not financially feasible. Careage's credibility was not discredited by the fact that Ms. Krueger was not aware of the mix of skilled and intermediate beds. True, but irrelevant. There is no evidence that such expenses were not accounted for, or if missing, the amount and importance. The staffing was shown by expert opinion to be adequate. T. 1216. One presumes that adequacy refers to adequate health care since the witness was only qualified in that area of expertise. The Careage design was not unique. The Careage use of the word "unique" to describe its design has been disregarded in this order. 78.c.(i)-(iii). These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 78.c.(vi). Not supported by the record cited. 78.c.(vii). The testimony cited is not competent opinion. There was no predicate for testimony as to the knowledge of Mr. Haben, and the objection to a similar question just preceding was sustained on that basis. 87-96, 100-101, 103-128. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant for the reasons stated in Health Quest's proposed finding of fact 76. 135. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 146. Not relevant since the 60 bed proposal is not in evidence. 149. Without evidence as to what is included in the definition of "subacute" care, a finding as to "virtually all" cannot be made. 151 and 158. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 166, 169, 170 and 172. Not relevant since the 60 bed proposal is not in evidence. 168. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Findings of fact proposed by Careage: The first sentence implies that Careage has operated nursing homes for 25 years. Careage has built nursing homes fob that length of time for operation by others, for the most part. The second sentence is true, but subordinate, and is adopted by reference. Mr. Griffin testified that the decision to adhere to the recommendations made by staff before he assumed his duties at HRS was not his decision. T. 705-06, 703. His testimony reflect very little personal participation in the evaluation of the competing applications. T. 697-705. 6. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 8. There was no credible evidence in this record as to how many Alzheimer's patients need specialized services. The evidence was simply that if such patients exist, such patients need specialized services. Thus, the first sentence is rejected. 8 (second sentence) -12. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. A comparison of staffing is not possible since Careage intends to serve primarily persons in need of skilled nursing care, and hence it cannot be determined if Careage in fact has proposed nursing staff that is more generous relative to patient need than Hillsborough. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Since insufficient credible evidence has been presented to conclude that Careage will operate the proposed facility, this finding of fact is rejected. The proposed finding concerning intent to provide adult day care is not supported by the record cited. 19-20. Irrelevant since insufficient credible evidence has been presented to conclude that Careage will operate the proposed facility. 21. The first sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 22-23, 25 (all but first sentence), 26, 17 (third, fourth, and seventh sentences), 29. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 24. It is concluded that associating a nursing home with an adult congregate living facility will in fact result in cost efficiencies. The remainder of this proposed finding of fact, noting the relatively higher costs of Health Quest compared to Careage, is true, but does not disprove the conclusion that cost efficiencies would exist. It is true that the Hillsborough Healthcare Medicare mix projection may be somewhat high, but the fiscal consequences of that conclusion was not demonstrated. The second sentence is rejected because Ms. Krueger was not accepted as an expert with respect to appropriate levels of staffing. T. 1686-88. 31. The second sentence is based upon hearsay. It is also based upon the opinion of Mr. Gentle which was inadmissible. T. 1577. The fourth and fifth sentences are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 32-33. These portions of the Forum Group amended application, F.G. EX. 6, were not admitted into evidence, and thus these proposed findings of fact are not relevant. 36. Irrelevant since the Health Quest 60 bed application is an impermissible amended application. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 DEPARTMENT OF HRS Edgar Lee Elzie, Jr., Esquire Guyte P. McCord, III, Esquire McFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 CAREAGE HOUSE HEALTH Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Haben and Associates Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 FORUM GROUP, INC. R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Post Office Box 11188 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 HILLSBOROUGH HEALTHCARE LTD. W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 HEALTH QUEST CORP. Charles N. Loeser, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 315 W. Jefferson Blvd. South Bend, IN 46601 Steven W. Huss, Esquire 1017 Thomasville Road Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32303 HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is responsible for the administration of the Certificate of Need ("CON") program in Florida, pursuant to Section 408.034, Florida Statutes (1992 supp.) AHCA initially published a need for 313 community nursing home beds in the 16 county area encompassing District III on April 17, 1992, which was subsequently corrected and published as a revised total of 321 net bed need for District III. On September 17, 1992, with a cover letter signed by Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA issued notice that it intended to issue: CON No. 6983P to Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare"), for construction of a 60 bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. ("Beverly"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and CON No. 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; and, intended to deny, among others: CON 6983 to Unicare for the construction of a 120-bed community nursing home in Hernando County; CON No. 6989 to Lake Port Properties ("Lake Port") for either the conversion of 60 sheltered nursing beds to 60 community nursing home beds or the conversion of the 60 beds and the construction of an additional 60 community nursing beds to be located in Lake County; CON No. 6991 to Unicare for the addition of 51 community nursing home beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center, in Marion County; CON No. 6992 to Ocala Health Care Associates, G.P., for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds to TimberRidge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Marion County; and CON No. 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. (Southern Medical) for the addition of 60 community nursing beds to Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County. Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that all participants have standing, except Heartland. Additional stipulations, accepted during the hearing, in the absence of a representative for Ocala Health Care Associates, are as follows: subsection 408.035 (1)(m) is not in dispute; proposed project costs and design are reasonable; the applicants' Schedules 1, notes and assumptions, the schematics, and the narrative responses to all of objective 4 in each application are in evidence, not in dispute, and are reasonable. The parties also stipulated to the approval of CON 6991 for Unicare to add 51 beds to its New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County, and the denial of CONS 6983 and 6983P to Unicare. LIFE CARE Life Care Centers of America, Inc. ("Life Care"), a privately-held corporation established in 1976, by its sole shareholder, Forrest L. Preston, owns, operates or manages 131 nursing homes and 14 retirement centers in 26 states. In Florida, Life Care manages four facilities with superior licenses, located in Altamonte Springs, Punta Gorda, and two in Palm Beach County, Lakeside and Darcy Hall. Life Care also owns, as well as operates, the facility in Altamonte Springs. Life Care owns and operates 28 nursing homes through leases, 6 or 7 of which are capital leases. Under the terms of the capital leases, Life Care is responsible for capital expenditures and projects. Life Care is not responsible for capital expenditures and projects at approximately 91 of its 131 facilities. Life Care proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in the southwest section of Hernando County, near Spring Hill, and to finance the total project cost of approximately $5 1/2 million from bank loans. Life Care has not identified a specific site for its facility. Life Care has proposed to accept a CON condition to provide 75 percent of its patient days to Medicaid beneficiaries, to establish a separate 20-bed wing for Alzheimers and related dementia ("ARD") residents, and to provide intravenous therapy, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitative therapy, wound care and adult day care. Life Care's proposed Medicaid condition exceeds the 1991 district average of 73.78 percent, and is consistent with its experience in Altamonte Springs of up to 73 percent Medicaid without a CON condition, and over 80 percent Medicaid in West Palm Beach. The Medicaid percentages indicate that Life Care will offer mainly traditional nursing home services. BEVERLY Beverly Enterprises, Inc., the ultimate corporate parent of the applicant, owns 830 nursing homes, with a total of 89,000 beds in 35 states. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., the applicant in this proceeding, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Beverly California Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Beverly Enterprises-Florida ("Beverly") owns 41 of the total 68 nursing homes owned in Florida by Beverly-related companies. Of the 40 nursing homes owned by Beverly at the time the application was filed, 31 had superior licenses. Three facilities had moratoria within the preceding 36 months, one a facility built in 1929, another with a two-week moratorium which is now licensed superior, and a third which is still conditional while physical plant improvements are underway. See, Finding of Facts 28, infra. Beverly proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Spring Hill, Hernando County, for $5,213,077, with its CON conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of annual patient days to Medicaid residents and a $10,000 grant for gerontology research at Hernando-Pasco Community College. Beverly proposes four beds for a ventilator-dependent unit, two beds for respite care, 20 beds on a separate wing for ARD residents, and to establish an adult care program. Beverly commits to group patients with ARD or other losses in cognitive functioning together in a 20-bed area, to offer subacute rehabilitative care in a 24 bed Medicare skilled nursing unit, and to provide intravenous therapy. Beverly also intends to establish a dedicated four-bed ventilator unit staffed with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience in critical care continuously on duty, a separately staffed adult day care program, and respite care. Beverly's would be the first ventilator beds other than in hospitals and the first licensed adult day care program in Hernando County. One of Beverly's existing Florida nursing homes is Eastbrooke which is also located in Hernando County, approximately 10 miles from the proposed Spring Hill site. Beverly expects its experienced personnel from Eastbrooke to train and assist in establishing Spring Hill. Beverly has identified a site for the Spring Hill facility which is across the street from an acute care hospital. Spring Hill is in southern Hernando County, near Pasco County. UNICARE By stipulation of the parties, the Unicare Health Facilities, Inc. ("Unicare") proposal to add 51 beds to New Horizon Rehabilitation Center in Marion County was recommended for approval on May 12, 1993. Unicare withdrew its requests for the approval of CONs 6983P and 6983 in Hernando County. As a result, the parties agreed that the number of beds needed was reduced from 321 beds to 270 beds. LAKE PORT Lake Port is a 60-bed licensed skilled nursing center, with a superior rating, located at the Lake Port Properties Continuing Care Retirement Community, in Leesburg, Lake County. Lake Port Properties is a partnership, for which Johnson Simmons Company serves as the managing general partner. The Lake Port community includes independent living residences, a 66-bed adult congregate living facility, and the 60 sheltered nursing beds. Among the services provided are post-operative care and orthopedic rehabilitative therapy for patients who have had knee or hip replacement surgery or shoulder injuries, neurological therapies for stroke injuries, pain management, subacute, open wound and respite care, and hospice services. Lake Port currently has 11 Medicare certified beds, and has had from 8 to 22 Medicare certified beds at a time. Lake Port has a contract with Hospice of Lake-Sumter County to provide interdisciplinary services to approximately five hospice residents a year. Rehabilitation services are also provided by contract at Lake Port. Lake Port has a relatively high volume of residents who are discharged home following intensive therapy within an average of three weeks. As an indicator of the intensity of therapeutic services, Lake Port has provided 26 percent Medicare, while the Lake/Sumter planning area average was 7.2 percent. Life Care projected a Medicare rate of 6.7 percent, Beverly projected 10 percent Medicare, and the Hernando County average is 9.3 percent. In this proceeding, Lake Port proposes either to convert the existing 60 skilled nursing beds to 60 community nursing beds at no cost, or the 60 bed conversion and the approval to construct an additional 60 community nursing home beds, for a total 120-bed community facility at a cost of $1.4 million. Lake Port proposes to have either CON, if approved, conditioned on the provision of 29.2 percent and 33.81 percent Medicaid, in years one and two, and respite, subacute, and intense rehabilitative care. Historically, the payer mix has included 25-30 percent Medicare and 30-35 percent Medicaid. All of the proposed services are provided currently at Lake Port. The effect of the change in licensure categories is to eliminate the requirement that the facility serve exclusively the retirement community residents after five years in operation, or after August 1995. Lake Port would still be obligated to provide nursing home care to Lake Port community residents at discounted costs, pursuant to the terms of their continuing care contracts. Occupancy levels at Lake Port exceed 95 percent, with 7 to 8 percent of patient days attributable to retirement community, and the remainder to patients in a service area which includes West Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port asserts that its financial viability depends on its ability to continue to serve all residents of its service area. SOUTHERN MEDICAL Southern Medical Associates, Inc. ("Southern Medical") is a Florida corporation which owns two nursing homes, one with 60 beds in Okaloosa County and one with 120 beds in Palatka, in Putnam County. Palatka Health Care Center opened with 60 beds in May 1989, added 60 beds in November 1990. Both nursing homes have superior licenses and are managed and staffed by National HealthCorp, L.P., which was founded in 1971, and manages 86 nursing homes, twenty-nine of those in Florida. The management fee is 6 percent of net revenues. In its application for CON number 6993, Southern Medical proposes to add 60 beds to the existing 120-bed nursing home, known as Palatka Health Care Center. Occupancy levels at the Palatka Center ranged between 96 and 99 percent in 1992-1993. Total project costs of $2.1 million will be financed by or through National HealthCorp. Southern Medical proposes that its CON be conditioned on the establishment of a 20-bed distinct Alzheimer's wing and the provision of 74 percent of total patient days to Medicaid patients. Southern Medical provides rehabilitation services in a 14-bed Medicare certified unit, antibiotic intravenous therapy, hospice and respite care. It exceeds the 73 percent Medicaid condition of its CON. SUBSECTION 408.035(1)(a) - NEED IN RELATION TO STATE AND LOCAL HEALTH PLANS The Florida State Health Plan includes 12 preferences to consider in reviewing nursing home CON applications, most of which overlap statutory review criteria in Section 408.035, Florida Statutes. Preference 1 encourages more nursing homes beds in subdistricts with 90 percent or higher occupancy in existing beds. District 3 is not subdistricted, but its nursing home bed occupancy rate was 91 percent in 1991. Therefore, all applicants for nursing homes in District 3 meet the preference. District 3 has been divided into planning areas by the local health council. The applications filed in this proceeding coincide with the planning areas for Hernando, Putnam, and Lake/Sumter Counties. In 1991, occupancy rates averaged 92 percent for Hernando, 96 percent for Putnam, and 93 percent for Lake/Sumter planning areas. Each applicant meets preference 1 using planning areas as substitutes for subdistricts. Preference 2 favors applicants whose Medicaid commitments equal or exceed the subdistrict-wide average. In the absence of subdistricts, the district wide average is used, which is 73.78 percent. Beverly's 74 percent commitment, Life Care's 75 percent commitment, and Southern Medical's 74 percent commitment, entitle them to be favored under preference 2. In addition, Beverly cites its 76.9 percent Medicaid patient days in 1991 at Eastbrooke, but it has failed to achieve its Medicaid commitment at one Florida nursing home in Cape Coral. Lake Port committed to provide a minimum of 33.81 percent Medicaid patient days and argued that it meets the exception to the preference for providing multi-level care. As described in the 1989 Florida State Health Plan, multi-level health systems offer a continuum of care which may range from acute care and ambulatory surgery centers to home health and education, including traditional nursing care. Special emphasis is placed on short-term intensive rehabilitation programs. Although Lake Port's proposal includes some of the features of a multi-level system, such as post-operative rehabilitative therapy and respite care, the Medicaid exception is inappropriate for Lake Port, because the same services are also proposed by Beverly and Southern Medical. See, also, Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes. Preference 3 relates to providing specialized services, including acquired immune deficiency syndrome ("AIDS") services to residents, ARD residents, and the mentally ill. This preference is met by Beverly, Life Care, and SMA, particularly for ARD patients for which all three applicants proposed to establish separate 20-bed units. The preference is also met by Lake Port, particularly with its emphasis on specialized, intense rehabilitative services. See, also Subsection 408.205(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Preference 4 supports applicants proposing to provide a "continuum of services to community residents," including respite and adult day care. Beverly and Life Care propose to offer both respite and adult day care. Lake Port and Southern Medical propose to provide respite and hospice care. Preference 5, for the construction of facilities which provide maximum comfort and quality of care, was stipulated as being met by all the parties. The applicants also stipulated that project costs and construction plans are reasonable. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(m),(2)(a) and (2)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 6 is met by all of the applicants: . . . proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical propose to offer specialized services to ARD residents. Lake Port and Southern Medical emphasize physical rehabilitation. All of the applicants meet the requirements for preference 6. Preference 7 is for applicants whose charges do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, which, for District 3, is $74.05, or $93.49 inflated at 6 percent to 1996. Life Care Care's proposed Medicaid charges are $93.69 for year 1, and $94.46 for year 2. Beverly projected that the average Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict will be $93.49 in 1996, its charge will be $95.00, but it will expect Medicaid reimbursement to be $93.30 for that year. Lake Port projected proposed charges to Medicaid patients as $90 to $93.92 in year one and $93 to $97.37 in year two, for the full 120 beds or the partial 60 beds, respectively. Southern Medical's Medicaid charges will be $90.22 in year one and $94.28 in year two. Preference 8 applies to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs, as indicated by licensure ratings. Of Beverly's 40 Florida facilities, 31 held superior licenses at the time the application was filed. Of the nine Beverly nursing homes with conditional ratings, six are now superior. Renovations or, in the case of one facility built in 1929, construction of a replacement building, are underway at the three others. Life Care, Southern Medical and Lake Port have histories of consistently superior license ratings. See, also, Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Preference 9 favors applicants proposing staffing levels exceeding minimum standards. Due to the ventilator, intravenous and rehabilitative services proposed, Beverly will staff in excess of that required by the state, with at least one registered nurse with a minimum of two years experience on all shifts and a full-time physical therapist. It intends to rely on its current Hernando County facility, Eastbrooke's relationship with Hernando-Pasco Community College, for recruitment and training of staff, although Beverly has not opened a new nursing home in Florida since 1987. Life Care similarly intends to rely on a CON approved facility in adjacent Citrus County. Southern Medical employs St. Augustine Vocational College students who are certified nurse assistants training to become licensed practical nurses, and licensed practical nurses training to become registered nurses are employed at Palatka, which also has internships for health sciences students from the University of North Florida. Its occupational, speech and physical therapists are full-time employees. Lake Port's staffing ratios will also exceed the minimums, in order to provide intensive rehabilitative therapies. See, also Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Each applicant meets preference 10 based on their proposed or current use of a variety of professional disciplines. See, Finding of Fact 29. Preference 11 seeks to ensure resident rights and privacy as well as implementing plans for quality assurance and discharge planning. All of the applicants were shown to follow well established residents' rights and privacy policies, and to have effective quality assurance programs. Pre-admission screening programs include discharge planning. Beverly has the most highly standardized corporate structure of incentives to maintain quality. Preference 12 relates to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the District. Average costs in District III are expected to be $54.79 for resident care and $13.97 for administrative overhead by 1996. Life Care expects resident care costs of $51.97 a day and administrative costs of $17.43 a day. Beverly projects its resident care to cost $61.89, with administrative costs of $8.86. Southern Medical proposes administrative costs of $19.88 per patient day and patient care costs of $46.23 per patient day. Lake Port's administrative costs are expected to be $27.80 for 60 beds or $22.12 for 120 beds, with patient care costs of $43.04 for 60 beds or $45.08 for 120 beds. Beverly, best meets the preference and expects enhanced economics and efficiency from combining some overhead for the operation of two nursing homes in Hernando County. Life Care, however, notes that its proposal enhances competition in view of the existence of one Beverly facility in Hernando County. See, Subsection 408.035(1)(e),(1)(h) and (1)(l), Florida Statutes, which also relate to costs, resources, and competition. District III includes 16 west central Florida counties, from Hamilton, Columbia, Union Bradford and Putnam in the North to Hernando, Sumter and Lake in the south. The allocation factors in the plan for District III are prepared by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, the local health council for the district. The district has not been subdivided by agency rule. Using its planning areas, the local health council has given priority rankings for applicants in certain areas of the district. Dixie, Lafayette and Union Counties, which have no nursing homes, are favored by the local plan. If, as in this case, there are no applicants from these counties, Hernando should be favored, followed by Putnam County. No priority was given to Lake County. The council also quantified bed need by planning area for the January 1995 planning horizon, with additional beds needed, ranging from 120 to 180 in Hernando, and up to 60 in Putnam. The parties agree generally that the council may establish planning areas in the discharge of its duties, but they disagree whether the establishment of upper limits, or caps in numeric need by planning area is authorized by law. Section 408.034, Florida Statutes, requires a uniform need methodology, which the agency has established by enacting the nursing home rule, Rule 59C-1.036(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Once the agency determines numeric need for a district and the district driving time standard, the local plan cannot alter these determinations. The local plan also includes certain fundamental principles for the allocation of new beds: (1) to promote geographic access, (2) to consider the locations of at-risk population need factors, and (3) to increase supply based on demand. In order of importance, the local plan lists three allocation factors (1) for counties without nursing homes, (2) for new nursing homes 20 miles or 25 minutes drive from existing or approved beds, and (3) for locations without approved beds and with existing nursing homes averaging occupancy levels at least 95 percent for the most recent six month or 90 percent for the most recent 12 months. With respect to the specific allocation factors, Life Care, Beverly, Southern Medical and Lake Port are in areas with over 90 percent average occupancy within a 20 mile radius. Life Care, Beverly and Southern Medical are proposing to establish facilities in areas of greater need than that in the area of Lake Port. Hernando and Putnam Counties also have lower ratios of nursing home beds to population than Lake County. The local health council's determination of the greatest need in Hernando County, was confirmed by expert testimony, based on analyzing licensed and approved beds, occupancy rates, distribution of population ages 65 and older, and 75 and older, and most importantly, projected growth of population 65 and older, and of 75 and older. The bed to population ratio for Hernando was, in 1992, 15.5 percent for 65 and older, and 44.9 percent for the population 75 and older, both of which are below the ratios for any other planning areas in the District. The projected increase in population 75 and older for the state is 12 percent, in contrast to the projected increase of 38 percent for Hernando County. Expert testimony for Beverly supported the addition of up to 300 beds in Hernando County to bring Hernando County's bed distribution in line with that of the entire district. The only approved provider in the county, Hernando Health Care, has surrendered its CON to add 18 nursing home beds in Hernando County. On the contrary, Heartland's expert calculated numeric need of only 119 additional beds in Hernando County. AHCA, however, gave no consideration to the effect on occupancy, fill- up rates, or financial feasibility of it preliminarily approving all new beds in Hernando County. The experience was compared, by Southern Medical's expert, to that in Clay County, in which 555 beds were 95 percent occupied, prior to the opening of two 120-bed facilities, one in December 1989, and the other in April 1990. At the end of the first year of operation, the facility that opened first was 48.5 percent occupied, the second was 21.7 percent occupied, and district occupancy was 77.7 percent. At the end of the second year, the rates were 81 percent, 55.6 percent, and 85.6 percent. However, by 1992, the nursing homes in that subdistrict averaged 93 percent occupancy. Opponents to the AHCA proposal to locate all new facilities in Hernando County, contend that the bed-to- population ratio or "parity" approach used to support the approval of 240 beds in that county does not take into account demographic variables among the counties in the district. While the bed-to-population ratio is not reliable in and of itself, alternative analyses for the determination of the location of greatest need within the district support the same conclusions. Those analyses relied upon current nursing homes occupancy levels, poverty, and population migration trends and available alternatives to distinguish among the various proposed locations. Based on occupancy levels, the District III counties of greatest need for additional beds are Putnam, Lake and Sumter, and Hernando, in that order. Putnam County residents are being placed in facilities outside the county due to the lack of available nursing home beds. In terms of poverty level and mortality levels, the figures for Putnam and Marion Counties indicated their populations were less healthy than those in Hernando and Lake. Hernando had 6.05 percent of its over 65 population, which is 85 and older, as compared to 9.34 percent in Lake, 8 percent in Putnam, and 8.28 percent as the district average. Hernando and Putnam Counties also had lower percentages of people 75 and older than did Lake and Marion Counties. ALTERNATIVES AND EXISTING NURSING HOMES IN DISTRICT 3 Subsections 408.035(1)(b) and (d) require consideration of other like and existing facilities in the district, as well as health care services which are alternatives to nursing homes. Currently, there are 4 nursing homes in Hernando County, and 12 in Lake County. In Putnam County, there are 3 nursing homes and 15 additional "swing beds," which may be used for acute care or long term care, approved for Putnam Community Hospital. Those beds are not available to serve Medicaid patients and are not included on the inventory of community nursing home beds. In the 511 existing nursing home beds in Hernando, there is an average daily census of 45 beds occupied by residents originating from other counties, while 23 Hernando residents constituted the average daily census leaving the County. Hernando cannot expect to retain in-migrating patients with the development of nursing homes in those residents' counties of origin, particularly, Citrus and Pasco. Given the decrease in nursing home patient days form 1991 to 1992, there is also no reason to expect any significant increase in use rate for the population in Hernando. The most compelling support for need in Hernando County is that the rate of growth of its over 75 population, which is more than three times that of the State. Putnam County has the lowest migration and a greater demand for nursing home services for the population age 85 and older. Putnam County nursing homes exceed 95 percent occupancy. Lake County area nursing homes were 93 percent occupied for the same period of time, and with the relinquishment of an approved CON for 60 beds by Leesburg Regional Hospital, that occupancy rate rises to approximately 95 percent. The award to Leesburg Regional established a need for 60 beds in Lake County, but there is also an approved CON for a 120-bed facility in Mount Dora. According to Lake Port's expert witnesses, the Mount Dora nursing home will not alleviate the need for beds in western Lake County. That facility, owned by the Adventist health group, is expected to be a referral facility from the nearby Adventist Hospital in Orlando and Sanford. Based on the alternative considerations of occupancy levels, poverty and morality rates, the need for additional beds in Putnam County is greater than the need in Lake County. Projected population increases and the limited alternatives also support the conclusion that a greater need exists in Hernando than in Lake County. Heartland of Brooksville ("Heartland"), is an existing 120-bed community nursing home in Brooksville, which is licensed superior. Heartland contends that the virtually simultaneous establishment of both Beverly and Life Care will adversely impact Heartland, and make it difficult for the new nursing homes to meet their projected utilizations. The trend of twice as many people migrating to, as there are leaving Hernando County for nursing home services, will be reversed as more nursing homes are established in surrounding counties. See, Finding of Fact 45. Heartland reasonably expects gradually to lose up to 30 percent of its residents who came from the Spring Hill area, where Beverly and Life Care intend to build new nursing homes. Heartland also reasonably expects to lose Medicare patients among the group from Spring Hill. Medicare residents average 9.3 percent of the total mix in the county, but account for 15 percent of the patient mix at Heartland. Heartland will be adversely affected for at least the first two years if both Life Care and Beverly are approved. See, Finding of Fact 40, supra. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Heartland, Southern Medical and Lake Port assert that Beverly will be successful in Hernando County, but that Life Care will not. Beverly is already established in the county, will provide services not currently available in nursing homes, and will open its facility seven months before Life Care. Life Care projected a net loss of $589,042 in year one, and a net gain of $254,991 in year two of operation. Life Care's projections fail to consider the company's 6.5 percent management fee, income taxes, and Medicaid reimbursement rate ceilings. By contrast to the other proposals and to the Hernando County average of 9.3 percent, Life Care is relying on a payor mix of only 6.7 percent Medicare, the group for which competition will be most intense. That mix parallels its Florida experience, which has historically allowed it to achieve a profit margin of 16 to 22 percent of net revenues in the third year of operation. Life Care's experience and audited financial statements support its contention that it can borrow essentially 100 percent of the funds necessary to support the project and complete the proposed project, a debt arrangement it has successfully used in the past, without defaulting on loans. Life Care's resources are also potentially subject to a $12 to $18 million judgment, due to litigation which is on appeal. Life Care has a contingency fund of $8 million to satisfy the judgment and has sufficient equity in its properties to pay the balance through refinancing. The deficiencies in Life Care's pro forma and its potential liabilities are off-set by the size and strength of the company, and its Hernando County project is financially feasible in the short and long terms. Beverly projects opening at Spring Hill 15 1/2 months after issuance of a CON, reaching 90 percent utilization within 15 months of opening. Beverly reasonably expects an after tax profit of $239,489 in the second year of operation. Beverly estimates project costs of $5.2 million, financed by the parent corporation, Beverly-California. Beverly-California has from $35 to 45 million available to contribute a 40 percent ($2 million) equity investment, and a $35 million loan commitment from which it will draw the balance to finance the project. Southern Medical has a letter of interest for financing of the total project costs of $2.1 million at 12 percent rate of interest by National HealthCorp. During the construction period, Southern Medical estimates that the existing 120 beds will remain 94 percent full, and that the new beds once open will fill at a rate of 10 percent a month, which is consistent with the experience of the management company, National HealthCorp. Southern Medical's actual experience in Palatka was, in fact, better. The first 60 beds were filled after 5 months while the additional 60 beds were filled in 7 to 8 months. Projected revenues of $290,000 during construction, $323,000 after year one, and $488,000 after year two are reasonable. Southern Medical's balance sheet shows short term debt of approximately $1.4 million attributable to the construction of the Okaloosa nursing home. Although Southern Medical secured a $3 million loan commitment for the Okaloosa facility, it has drawn from that account $473,000. That debt will be refinanced and recategorized as long term debt. Southern Medical's project is financially feasible in the short and long term, based on its actual experience in the existing 120-bed facility. Lake Port has the financial resources to construct 60 additional beds for $1.4 million. Lake Port's proposed conversion of the licensure category for its existing 60 beds is at no cost, except for approximately $37,000 in filing and consultants fees. In its third year of operation, Lake Port has achieved 97 percent occupancy. At present, delays of up to a week may be experienced in transfering patients from acute care hospitals to nursing homes in the Leesburg area. From October to May, due to the influx of northerners, beds are generally not available in the Leesburg area of western Lake and Sumter Counties. Lake Port's projections of occupancy and its financial ability to complete either 60-bed conversion and/or 60-bed addition make either proposal financially feasible in the short or long term.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That AHCA issue CON 6985 to Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the operation of a 4-bed ventilator-dependent unit, 2 beds for respite care, an adult day care program, and a 20-bed separate unit for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia. That AHCA issue CON 6986 to Life Care Centers of America, Inc. to construct a 120-bed nursing home in Hernando County, conditioned on the provision of a minimum of 75 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, the operation of a 20-bed dedicated wing for residents with Alzheimer's and related dementia, and the operation of an adult day care. That AHCA issue CON 6993 to Southern Medical Associates, Inc. for the addition of 60 community nursing home beds at Palatka Health Care Center in Putnam County, conditioned on the provision of 74 percent of total annual patient days to Medicaid residents, and the establishment of a 20-bed district Alzheimer's wing. That AHCA deny CON 6989P and CON 6989 to Lake Port Properties. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 21st day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6656 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner, Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., d/b/a Beverly Gulf Coast-Florida, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Finding of Fact 3. 2-9. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 8-10, 24 and 25. 10. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 11-15. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 33. 16-19. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 20-21, 37-39. 20-23. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 24-30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 31. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 32-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9, 23, 24, 29 or 30. 39-42. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 43-48. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-31. 49. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29-30. 50-56. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 50-51. 57-62. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29 or 30. 63-64 Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 32, 39 and 46-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 67-68. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9-10. 69. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 6. 70-71. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 10. 72-75. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7, 8-10 and 48-51. 76. Accepted in Finding of Fact 32. 77-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 48-49. Petitioner, Southern Medical's, Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16 and 17. 5-14. Subordinate to preliminary statement. 15. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 16-17. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. 18-19. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. 20-22. Rejected in conclusions of law 4. 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 36. 24-41. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 33-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 19. Accepted in Findings of Fact 20-21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 23. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. Accepted in Finding of Fact 27. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted in Finding of Fact 30. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. Accepted in part in Finding of Fact 32. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 56-57. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 58-60. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. 61-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 18, 22 and 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. 65-69. Accepted in or Subordinate to Finding of Fact 34 and 43-45. 70-72. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-18 and 22-23. 73-74. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29-30. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 76-77. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 78-96. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected in Findings of Fact 34-39 and 45. 100-101. Rejected in Findings of Fact 41-42 and 45. 102. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 43-45. 103-109. Rejected in relevant part and accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 41-45. 110-112. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in conclusions of law 60. 116-120. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 48 and 49. 121. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 122-123. Rejected in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. 124-125. Issue not addressed at hearing. Accepted in relevant part in Finding of Fact 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 29. Petitioner, HCR Limited Partnership I d/b/a Heartland of Brooksville's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 5-7. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 12-14. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 16-18. Accepted in Preliminary Statement and Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 40. Accepted in Finding of Fact 33. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 9-16. Accepted in Findings of Fact 34-38. 17. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21 and 43. 19-22. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21, 42 and 43. 23-33. Accepted in Findings of Fact 38, 42 and 43. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. 36-41. Accepted in or Subordinate to Findings of Fact 45 and 47. 42-44. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. 45. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Petitioner, Lake Port Properties's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 40. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 4 and last sentence rejected in preliminary statement. Accepted in Preliminary Statement. 7-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 29. Rejected in Finding of Fact 45. 30-34. Accepted in Findings of Fact 39-43 and 46. 35. Rejected in Finding of Fact 46. 36-38. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 39-42. Facts accepted, conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 44-46. 43-47. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. 48. Rejected in Finding of Fact 39. 49-54. Conclusion in first sentence rejected in Finding of Fact 39. Facts accepted in Findings of Facts 39-45. 55-60. Not solely relied upon but not disregarded. Facts generally accepted in Findings of Fact 39-45. 61-74. Accepted in part and rejected in part in Findings of Fact 19-32. 75-82. Accepted in part in Findings of Fact 33-38. 83-93. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 28-29. 94-100. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54-55. 101-103. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 54. 104. Accepted in Finding of Fact 31. 105-106. Accepted in Finding of Fact 22. 107-111. Rejected first sentence in Findings of Fact 39 and 40. Remainder of 107-111 accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-38. 112-113. Conclusion rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48, and 49. 114-117. Accepted in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Rejected in Findings of Fact 45, 48 and 49. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. 120-121. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 7. 122-125. Accepted in Findings of Fact 7 and 48. 126-130. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. Respondent, Life Care Centers of America, Inc.'s, Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-9. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-43. 10-12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. 13. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. 14(a-d)-20. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-40. 21(a-d). Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-32. 22. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. 23-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 44-47. Accepted in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 39. Accepted in part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 34-40. Accepted in relevant part or subordinate to Findings of Fact 5-7. 41(a-c). Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 29. 42. Rejected in relevant part in Finding of Fact 12. 43-45. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. Rejected in Findings of Fact 44. 47-48. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 45. 49-50. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. 51-54. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 55-62. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. 63-64. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. 65-69. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54-55. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 29. 73-74. Accepted. 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 76-77. Accepted in Findings of Fact 40-43. 78-79. Accepted in Finding of Fact 29. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 52. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. 82-85. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 22. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 47. Accepted in conclusions of law. Accepted in preliminary statement. Issue not reached. Subordinate to preliminary statement. Conclusion rejected in Finding of Fact 16. Respondent, AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in or subordinate to preliminary statement and Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted in preliminary statement. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 21 and conclusions of law 66. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 21. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2 and 4. Accepted in preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15. Accepted in Findings of Fact 16-18.8. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 5-7. Subordinate to preliminary statement and Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in relevant part in Findings of Fact 5-7 and 19-33. Relevant as to availability due to occupancy ratio in Findings of Fact 37-45. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 48-49. Accepted, except first sentence in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10 and 19-32. Accepted in Findings of Fact 50-51. Accepted in Findings of Fact 33-39. Conclusions rejected in Findings of Fact 19-32. Accepted facts in 19-20 and 44. Accepted in Findings of Fact 8-10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 52-53. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12-15 and 19-32. Rejected in Findings of Fact 19 and 20. Accepted in Finding of Fact 28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 54 and 55. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Manheimer, Attorney Dennis LaRosa, Attorney Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred W. Clark, Attorney at Law Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James C. Hauser, Attorney Lachlin Waldoch, Attorney Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen Lewis, Goldman & Metz, P.a. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Anton, Attorney Stowell, Anton & Kraemer Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward Labrador, Attorney Richard Patterson, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 W. David Watkins, Attorney Robert Downey, Attorney Oretel, Hoffman, Fernandez, et al. 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Attorney Pennington & Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
