Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following relevant facts are found: HRS District VIII includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Glades, Lee, Hendry and Collier Counties. There are presently no existing and operating osteopathic hospitals within District VIII. However, there are two applications now pending for new for new osteopathic facilities within the District. One is in Sarasota and one is on behalf of the intervenor Doctors' Osteopathic Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Coast Hospital, Inc. (Gulf Coast), which seeks to build and operate a 120-bed acute care osteopathic hospital to be located in south lee County. That application has proceeded through the administrative hearing process, received a Recommended Order for approval of 120 beds, a Final Order for approval of 60 beds and is currently on appeal. The intervenor Naples Community Hospital is an existing allopathic acute care hospital located in Collier County, which is immediately south of Lee County. The intervenor Lee Memorial Hospital is an existing allopathic acute care hospital located in Lee County and has approval to construct and operate a satellite facility in south Lee County. The petitioner Family Center Hospital Osteopathic, Inc., proposes to construct and operate a 100-bed full service, osteopathic teaching hospital in southwest Lee County. A particular site has not yet been selected or acquired. If the proposed facility was established, it would be in competition with allopathic hospitals for patients and staffing. The petitioner's original application for a Certificate of Need was submitted to HRS in the summer of 1982. That application was prepared by a health planning consulting firm, no member of which testified in this proceeding. The original application was amended prior to the hearing with regard to the need for osteopathic beds in the area, the financial projections and the architectural design of the facility. Petitioner intends to retain a full-time management firm to be responsible for managing the proposed facility. No firm commitments have been made and no tentative price quotations have been received for such an arrangement. Petitioner proposes to construct a two-story 90,000 square foot building with ancillary services on the first floor and patient areas on the second floor. The patient areas include a 15-bed obstetrical until, a 10-bed pediatrics unit, an 8-bed ICU/CCU and the remaining beds would be medical- surgical beds. The architect had no knowledge of the location of the site proposed, and thus no site plan has been developed. While the average construction cost per square foot of a health care facility in Florida is approximately $115 or $120, that cost can vary depending upon site development requirements, construction materials, floor coverings, wall coverings and the like. These details have not yet been determined The fact that the proposed facility is to be teaching hospital was not taken into account in the schematic design. An accountant, who had no prior experience with projecting financial feasibility for a health care facility was retained by the petitioner to prepare a projected financial statement for the proposed facility. His opinion that the project would be financially feasible within the second year of operation was based primarily upon occupancy projections made by a health planner, the itemization and costs associated with manpower, salaries, equipment, supplies, etc., as projected in the original application and conversations with a "Mr. Becker" relating to bond financing. He compared his estimates and projections with other Certificate of Need applications in the Lee County area. The accountant was unaware of whether nor not the applications relied upon for comparison purposes had been update or revised at some subsequent time. He also received data concerning revenues of a "select group" of hospitals as published in a Hospital Cost Containment Board report for 1984, but made no determination of that Board's grouping of hospitals for comparative purposes. No independent investigation of the accuracy of the contents of the original application was performed by the accountant or anyone on his behalf. Although the accountant adjusted the manpower requirements as originally projected to conform with his perception of the occupancy projections, he was unaware of the minimum staffing requirements imposed upon hospitals by state and/or federal regulations. The witness candidly admitted that he did not consider it within his expertise to determine the manpower or equipment requirements for the proposed facility. He is unaware of whether or not the bond financing proposed for this project is available. There was no showing that petitioner had sufficient funds available to make expenditures for project development or other pre-opening expenses, estimated to be over $400,000.00. His revenue projections did not take into account the existence of other osteopathic beds in the area. By utilizing alternative methodologies which took into account both statewide and district wide statistics regarding osteopathic utilization rates, the number and distribution of osteopathic physicians, and population projections; the petitioner's health care planner concluded that there is a gross need in the year 1991 for 144 osteopathic acute care hospital beds in District VIII. Assuming that there are no other osteopathic hospitals in District VIII, the health care planner was of the opinion that there is a net need for the same number of beds in that District. She further concludes that the proposed osteopathic hospital would obtain 90% of the osteopathic patients of Lee County, 50% of the osteopathic patients in other District VIII Counties and an occupancy rate of approximately 73% for the second year of operation. She admits that if Gulf Coast is awarded a Certificate of Need for 60 beds or 120 beds and/or if the Sarasota applicant is awarded a Certificate of Need, the net bed need of 144 would be reduced accordingly and the projected market share and occupancy rates would be affected. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning its ability to adequately staff its proposed facility. Likewise, no evidence was presented as to petitioner's ability to obtain funds for capital expenditures or for the operation of the facility. The impact of the proposed project upon the cost of providing health services was not addressed by the petitioner. There is a need for research and educational facilities to train doctors of osteopathic medicine at the student, internship and residency levels. Both Manasota Osteopathic General Hospital in Sarasota and Gulf Coast Hospital in fort Myers have indicated their desires to become teaching facilities.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a Certificate of Need be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of May 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 7th day of May 1986. APPENDIX The proposed joint findings of fact submitted by Doctors' Osteopathic Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Gulf Coast Hospital, Inc., and Naples Community Hospital have been approved and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary to the issues in this proceeding. Many of the proposed findings of fact contain recitations of a lack of evidence regarding certain criteria. Where these have not been included in the factual findings, they are included in the Conclusions of Law, where pertinent. COPIES FURNISHED: Claude H. Tison, Jr., Esquire MCFARLANE, FERGUSON, ALLISON & KELLY Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 R. Sam Power, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. C. Newton, II, Esquire CARSON & LINN, P.A. Cambridge Centre 253 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. David Watkins, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Ivan Wood, Jr., Esquire WOOD, LUCKSINGER & ESPTEIN One Houston Center Suite 1600 Houston, Texas 77010 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of osteopathic medicine pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 459, Florida Statutes. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent was a licensed osteopathic physician within the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS 8729. Respondent's address of record at the time of filing the Administrative Complaint was 11950 County Road 101, Suites 101, 102, and 103, The Villages, Florida 32162. Respondent's current address of record is 13767 U.S. Highway 441, Lady Lake, Florida 32159. Respondent currently holds no board certification in any specialty area, and did not complete any residency other than in emergency medicine. Respondent attended Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine. In 2002, he began full-time practice as an emergency room physician at Munroe Regional Medical Center in Ocala, Florida. He worked as an emergency room physician until he opened Exceptional Urgent Care Center (“EUCC”). At all times material to this complaint, Respondent owned and operated EUCC. Treatment Provided to Patient J.K. On March 15, 2018, J.K., along with his wife, presented to EUCC with complaints of a sore throat and fever. This was the first of two visits to the clinic. J.K. reported his medications as Amlodipine, Warfarin, Tamsulosin, and Dofetilide (unless otherwise indicated, hereinafter referred to by its trade name "Tikosyn"). J.K. was prescribed these medications by his cardiologist at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (“V.A. Hospital”) in Wisconsin, his home state. Relevant to this matter, Tikosyn helps patients maintain a normal heartbeat rhythm. Tikosyn was prescribed to keep J.K.'s heart in rhythm as he had atrial fibrillation. J.K. was treated by a nurse practitioner, who ordered a chest x-ray and a flu swab. The flu swab returned negative, and the chest x-ray showed no focal pneumonia. J.K. was prescribed Tamiflu and Naproxen. J.K. elected not to fill the Tamiflu due to the “expensive cost.” Respondent was not involved in J.K.'s treatment on this date. On March 16, 2018, J.K. and his wife K.K. returned to EUCC as J.K.’s symptoms had not improved. On this visit, J.K. saw Dr. Im. Dr. Im evaluated J.K. and ordered two tests. Dr. Im ordered a Prothrombin Time International Normalized Ration ("PT INR") test to determine J.K.'s coagulation and he ordered a CT scan of the chest. The PT INR results were within the therapeutic range. The CT scan showed shattered ground- glass opacification in the posterior right lower lobe and the medial left upper lobe. The CT scan findings were interpreted as "non-specific, may represent hypoventilatory change or an infectious inflammatory process (acute or chronic).” Respondent advised J.K. and K.K. that the CT scan appeared to show the start of pneumonia, and he was going to prescribe three medications: Levaquin 750 mg, Prednisone 20 mg, and Zyrtec 10 mg. K.K. testified that she asked Respondent if the Levaquin, Prednisone, or Zyrtec were contraindicated with any of J.K.'s current prescriptions, specifically Tikosyn. K.K recalls that Respondent replied that he was not familiar with Dofetilide (Tikosyn), and advised them to check with the pharmacist to see if there were any contraindications. Although Respondent initially advised J.K. and K.K. that he was not familiar with Tikosyn, Respondent testified that he advised J.K. and K.K. of the possible interactions between Levaquin and Tikosyn and told her that the interaction was very rare. He testified that he advised J.K. and K.K. that the pharmacist is a safety net, and the pharmacist would call him to discuss the prescriptions if he missed anything. K.K. credibly testified that Respondent did not counsel J.K. or K.K. on any risks regarding the medications Dr. Im prescribed or provide them with any alternatives during the visit on March 16, 2018. J.K. and K.K. left EUCC and went to Publix to fill the prescriptions. K.K. asked the pharmacist if any medications would interfere with any of J.K.'s prescribed medications. Upon advice of the pharmacist that Levaquin was contraindicated with Tikosyn, K.K. declined to fill the prescription for Levaquin. On behalf of J.K., K.K. then called EUCC and asked for a different antibiotic that would not interact with Tikosyn. However, she was instructed to contact J.K.'s cardiologist. K.K. then contacted the cardiology staff of the V.A. Hospital in Wisconsin, who instructed K.K. to follow the advice of the pharmacist and (tell J.K.) not to take the Levaquin. K.K. called EUCC a second time to confirm whether J.K. had an infection and she was told that J.K. did not have an infection. Respondent recalls that he had a personal conversation with K.K. during a courtesy telephone call placed the next day (March 17, 2018). Respondent testified that during that call, he explained Levaquin was the drug of choice, other medications would not cover J.K.'s pneumonia, the potential interactions were very rare, and J.K. needed to take the Levaquin. By his own admission and his medical records, Respondent did not provide J.K. or K.K. with any specific alternative antibiotics and insisted that J.K. needed to take the Levaquin. K.K. disputes that Dr. Im spoke with her or J.K. at any point after the March 16, 2018, visit. She clearly recalled that she spoke with a woman each time she spoke with staff at Dr. Im’s office. Overall, J.K. and K.K. clearly and convincingly testified that Respondent never advised them of the risks of using Levaquin with Tikosyn or provided any alternatives to the Levaquin. Expert Testimony Petitioner offered the testimony of Dr. Anthony Davis, who testified as an expert. Dr. Davis has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in Florida since 1995. Dr. Davis attended Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine and completed an internship in family practice. He has been board certified in family medicine by the American Board of Osteopathic Family Physicians since 2001, and board certified in emergency medicine by the American Association of Physician Specialists since July 2003. He is also affiliated with professional organizations including the American College of Family Practice and Florida Osteopathic Medical Association. Dr. Davis was accepted as an expert in emergency and family medicine. Dr. Davis relied upon his work experience, his training, and his review of the medical records for J.K. to render his opinion regarding the standard of care related to treating J.K. The standard of care requires an osteopathic physician treating a patient similar to J.K. to: (1) provide and document their justification for why Levaquin was the appropriate drug of choice; (2) note the patient’s acknowledgment that there are interactions with Tikosyn; (3) ensure the patient understands the risks and benefits of combining Tikosyn and Levaquin; (4) explain to the patient that there are limited alternatives to Levaquin; and (5) provide the reason for prescribing a potentially dangerous drug. Levaquin is a medication that comes with a black box warning that requires physicians to counsel patients on the risks associated. When a drug is designated as contraindicated and has a category X for interaction, the standard of care requires that the physician clearly explains to the patient why they are using the drug and defend how it is going to be safe. Tr., p. 70. Dr. Davis opined there were multiple treatment options available for J.K., such as supportive care or an antibiotic with a lower risk of interaction with J.K.'s existing medication. Moreover, Dr. Davis testified that there were safer alternatives to Levaquin that would effectively treat pneumonia, such as doxycycline, if J.K. actually had pneumonia and an antibiotic was necessary. Respondent provided literature from the Infectious Diseases Society of America related to community-acquired pneumonia in an attempt to prove that X-Ray or other imaging techniques are required for the diagnosis of pneumonia and to support his claim that Levaquin was the drug of choice for J.K. However, Dr. Davis credibly pointed out that the article, published in 2007, is no longer accurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Osteopathic Medicine enter a Final Order as follows: Finding that John Joseph Im, D.O., violated section 459.015(1)(x), by committing medical malpractice, as defined in section 456.50, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; Issue a letter of concern against Respondent’s license to practice osteopathic medicine; Requiring completion of a prescribing practices course; and Imposing an administrative fine of $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2019.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Leon L. Shore, was at all times material hereto a licensed osteopathic physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS 0001600. On or about December 19, 1985, respondent presented to Harvey Sogoloff a pharmacist licensed in the State of Florida, a prescription to be filled. The subject prescription was written by respondent, and prescribed Percodan for himself. Mr. Sogaloff duly filled the subject prescription. Percodan, whose active ingredient is Oxicodone Hydrochloride, a salt of oxicode, is a Schedule II narcotic drug, as defined by Section 893.03(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1985). At the time of the prescription was written, respondent maintained his primary place of practice at 4801 South University Drive, Davie, Florida. During the first week of September, 1986, respondent closed his practice at that location without notice to petitioner, and did not thereafter practice for several months. In January, 1987, respondent resumed his practice at a new location, without notice to petitioner. Respondent asserts, however, that 2-3 weeks after commencing such practice, he instructed one of the medical directors at the center to notify petitioner of his new address. There was no proof that such notice was given, but following the commencement of this case, respondent did notify the petitioner of his new address, and no untoward consequences were shown to have resulted from such delay.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered placing respondent on probation for a period of one (1) year subject to such conditions as the board may specify, and imposing an administrative fine against respondent in the sum of $1,000. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 21st day of January, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 2. & 8. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 5. & 4. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. 5-7 & 9. Rejected as not a finding of fact, or subordinate. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Not necessary to result reached. Not necessary to result reached. 3-9 & 12. Rejected as not a finding of fact, subordinate, or contrary to the result reached. 10 & 11. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 5. COPIES FURNISHED: David G. Vinikoor, Esquire DAVID G. VINIKOOR, P.A. 420 S. E. Twelfth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Derk A. Young, Esquire 320 Southeast 9th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Rod Presnell Executive Director Osteopathic Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license as an Osteopathic Physician in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed osteopathic physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS 0003822. Respondent's last known address is 1804 Nelson Street, No. 15, Ormond Beach, Florida 32074. From on or about July 17, 1985, until on or about April 28, 1987, Respondent diagnosed patient L.K. as suffering from, and rendered medical care and treatment for, juvenile fibromatosis or fibromatosis colli. Juvenile fibromatosis and fibromatosis colli are conditions characterized by the occurrence of multiple fibromas. Fribromas are benign (non- malignant) neoplasms. On or about July 17, 1985, Respondent executed a letter which was sent to the Exceptional Student Education Services section of the School Board of Volusia County (School Board) wherein Respondent represents that the patient L.K. "is being treated for a malignancy of the neck, etiology undermined." On or about August 22, 1986, Respondent executed a letter intended to allow the patient L.K. to avoid required immunization wherein Respondent represents that patient L.K. "...has a malignancy which was not identified by multiple biopsy." The representations made to the School Board in his letters of July 17, 1985, and August 22, 1986, were made in Respondent's practice of Osteopathic Medicine. Only one biopsy of the patient's neck mass was performed prior to Respondent's letter of August 22, 1986, to the School Board. This biopsy was performed during March of 1980 by Gary Horndeski, M.D. The pathology report concerning this biopsy was not received by Respondent until March 18, 1987. The patient's neck mass had not been subjected to multiple biopsy as represented by the Respondent on August 22, 1986. The Respondent's representations in the August 22, 1986 letter were deceptive, untrue, and fraudulent. The medical records of Respondent fail to document that Respondent performed multiple biopsies on the mass. Respondent has failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including but not limited patient histories, examination results, and test results. Respondent prescribed, dispensed or recommended BHI Regeneration, Polyzyme 022 and Vitamin C 500 mg tablets to patient L.K. On or about November 21, 1986, Respondent executed three separate forms authorizing the administration of BHI Regeneration, Polyzyme 022 and Vitamin C to patient L.K. by school personnel of Volusia County, indicating that he had ordered the administration of these substances as a "part of scheduled med program." BHI Regeneration and Polyzyme 022 are "drugs" as defined by Section 499.003(8), Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to note in patient L.K.'s medical records his prescribing, dispensing or recommendation of BHI Regeneration and Polyzyme 022. Respondent's written medical records fail to document "informed consent" to the drug therapy initiated including medically acceptable alternative procedures or treatments. The preferred course of treatment for a mass of the size and location as existing on patient L.K. would be surgical intervention. Respondent's written medical records fail to adequately document the reason for not following the preferred course of treatment (surgery), that surgery was discussed with the patient's parents, or that the parents declined surgery. Respondent's entry for March 10, 1987, in the medical record of patient L.K. indicates "recommend to get physiotherapy in lieu of surgery." Respondent's medical records fail to justify the course of treatment of the patient, including but not limited to patient histories, examination results, and test results. A reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances would have referred patient L.K. to a specialist or obtained a consultation with a specialist. Respondent failed to do so. A reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances would not have recommended that patient L.K. not receive standard immunizations nor would such a physician have executed a school form allowing patient L.K. to be exempted from required immunizations. A reasonably prudent similar physician would have obtained and reviewed prior biopsy report or conducted a biopsy on patient L.K. soon after undertaking the care of the patient. Respondent has failed to practice osteopathic medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably osteopathic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. On or about April 7, 1987, the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum commanding Respondent produce for copying and inspection any and all medical records of patient L.K. On or about May 8, 1987, the aforementioned subpoena was served on Respondent to produce copies of any and all medical records of patient, L.K., on May 10, 1987, at 6501 Arlington Expressway, Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent did not file a challenge or object in any fashion to the subpoena. As a result of the Petitioner filing a petition for enforcement of the subpoena, Respondent furnished to Petitioner what was purported to be the medical records of patient L.K., and did not in any way advise Petitioner that there were certain records pertaining to L.K. that he did not consider medical records. The medical records of patient L.K. submitted by Respondent in response to the subpoena were incomplete. Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine in the state of Florida was disciplined by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (Board) by its final order issued on April 19, 1988, wherein Respondent's license was suspended for one year; to be followed by a three year period of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 459.015(1)(n), (p), (y) (cc), Florida Statutes (1989), as set forth in Counts I, III, IV and V of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended, and for such violation, considering the guidelines for imposing penalties set forth in Rule 2IR-19, Florida Administrative Code, and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances allowing the Board to deviate from those guidelines set forth in Rule 2IR-19, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida be suspended for one year subject to the terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate for reinstatement. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count II be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-0308 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1-26. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-26, respectively. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Respondent filed a one page, two paragraph Proposed Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusion of Law that was an argument consisting of facts and law. To the extent that there are facts contained in his argument, they are either not material or not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Chief Trial Counsel 730 S. Sterling Street Suite 201 Tampa, Florida 32609 David L. Sturdivant, Sr. 1804 Nelson Street, #I15 Ormond Beach, Florida 32704 Rod Presnell Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Applicants. Land O'Lakes Petitioner Land O'Lakes Hospital, Inc. (Land O'Lakes) is an applicant for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 112-bed general acute care hospital in Land O'Lakes. None of the beds will be designated as either pediatric or obstetrical beds; all will be considered general medical/surgical beds. Notwithstanding its own designation of Land O'Lakes Hospital, Inc., as the Petitioner in Case No. 84-1509, the actual applicant is entitled Health Care Associates Of America, Inc. The President of Health Care Associates Of America, Inc., is a veterinarian named Robert R. Hase, Jr. Veterinarian Hase's only experience with human health care is his involvement in his company's certificate of need for a 60-bed nursing home in Hudson, Florida, next to the Bayonet Point Regional Medical Center. Hase's company obtained the certificate of need in 1982, and the facility still is under construction, being only about 40 percent completed. In the preparation of the Land O'Lakes application and the preparation for final hearing, Hase relied to a large extent on the advice of those he retained as expert witnesses for the final hearing. For whatever reason, Hase waited until shortly before the final hearing to plan and decide upon some of the important details of his proposed project. As of the final hearing, Land O'Lakes had a square foot analysis for the proposed facility but no line drawings, no functional program and no utilization forecast for ancillary departments. The Land O'Lakes pro formas were not prepared until less than two weeks before the final hearing. Although Land O'Lakes relied to a great extent on the advice of its expert witness Michael Schwartz in shaping and modifying its application, there was no evidence that Mr. Schwartz would continue to advise Land O'Lakes or otherwise be involved in the project's development after the final hearing or in the operation of the facility when built. Within one week before the final hearing, Hase changed the Land O'Lakes application from one for a for-profit hospital to one for a not-for-profit hospital. The motivation for the change primarily was to improve the chances that the application ultimately would be approved. The switch seemed inconsistent with Hase's primary interest in the "financial bottom line" and whether things made "financial sense" to him as opposed to "good health care sense." Despite the technical application for a not-for-profit hospital, the evidence did not offer much assurance that Land O'Lakes would remain a not-for- profit hospital after the granting of a certificate of need unless required by HRS or University Community Hospital. Shortly before the final hearing, Land O'Lakes entered into an "intent to agree" with University Community Hospital (UCH) for management and consulting services in the pre-operational and operational phases of the proposed Land O'Lakes hospital and for ancillary and support services during the operational phase. The "intent to agree" was not signed until the Friday before the start of the final hearing on Monday, August 11, when the original was produced by Hase during cross examination. So new was this development that not even Land O'Lakes' attorneys were aware that the "intent to agree" had been signed. Despite the uncertain nature of the arrangements between Land O'Lakes and UCH, certain features of the Land O'Lakes application are dependent upon the establishment of the relationship. For example, the application does not include enough ancillary services to support a free-standing hospital, even a relatively small, relatively rural and relatively unsophisticated hospital. Only the most basic ancillary services would be provided at Land O'Lakes. The rest would be referred to UCH. As a result of this arrangement, the Land O'Lakes application proposes a hospital with a staff 13 to 15 FTE's smaller than one would expect, with resulting lower forecasted operating expenses. In addition, Land O'Lakes does not plan to have 24-hour emergency room service, intending to rely on UCH for emergency room service part of the time. Since the "intent to agree" is tentative in nature, even if a Land O'Lakes-UCH relationship is established, it is uncertain what that relationship would be. It is possible that it ultimately would result in Land O'Lakes becoming a virtual satellite hospital for UCH. (UCH has in fact already applied for a certificate of need for a satellite hospital in north Hillsborough County.) Bi-County Community Hospital. Petitioner Bi-County Community Hospital (Bi-County) has applied for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 100-bed osteopathic acute care hospital in Land O'Lakes. Like Land O'Lakes, Bi-County would not have any designated pediatric or obstetrical beds, only general/medical surgical beds. But unlike Land O'Lakes, Bi-County I's designed to have 24-hour emergency room service and a full complement of ancillary and support services ordinarily maintained and operated in a relatively rural and relatively unsophisticated hospital of its size. In addition, as an osteopathic hospital, Bi-County would be accredited by the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and would make conditions conducive to practice of osteopathy at the hospital, including the installation and availability of osteopathic manipulation tables, without excluding or discouraging the practice of allopathic medicine at the hospital. The application also represents that it will offer an osteopathy internship program. Bi-County's principals include osteopathic doctors Lewis Faulkenberg and Robert Ford, an allopathic doctor named Fellman, and Mrs. Dr. Faulkenberg. Drs. Faulkenberg and Ford started Bi-County primarily as a response to the reduction of their privileges at Carrollwood Community Hospital in north Hillsborough County. The three physicians have considerable experience as practitioners, and Dr. Faulkenberg has experience as developer, principal, president of the board of directors and medical director of a 250-bed osteopathic hospital opened in Colorado in 1963. Notwithstanding Faulkenberg's experience, a health care facilities development company named Southwood Development Company, owned and operated by James H. Lewis of Elizabethton, Tennessee, has been in charge of the preparation of, and modifications to, the Bi-County application and the preparation for final hearing. Lewis also has selected Bi-County expert witnesses for the final hearing and is paying litigation costs. Faulkenberg and the other Bi-County principals have committed themselves to invest in the project in the future if the certificate of need is granted. Although most of Lewis' experience has been in the nursing home industry, he demonstrated his ability to shepherd the proposed project to the operational phase. Like Land O'Lakes, Bi-County also left some important details of its application until shortly before the final hearing. Bi-County did have line drawings of a proposed facility, but they were prepared approximately 10 days before the final hearing primarily to give the appearance of preparedness which did not exist. The architect who drew the plans did not know the gross square footage of the proposed facility and did not know the HRS regulations which would impact the design of the facility. The square footage for certain areas of the drawing he did were inconsistent with the square footage for the same areas in the application. The architect designed the facility for all private rooms, contrary to the application. He did the drawing without even inquiring as to Bi-County's desire as to the mix of private and semi-private rooms. Finally, the line drawing erroneously includes a labor and delivery room which is not part of the application. There also was no evidence that Bi-County had designed a functional program or had forecasted utilization for ancillary departments. Again, these are primary steps in the prudent preparation of a plan to built a new hospital. Bi-County's financial expert was not retained until two weeks before the final hearing and did not prepare pro formas until after her deposition. Bi-County's application contemplates management by a for-profit company named Health Care Management Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Basic American Medical, Incorporated, (BAMI). Under the Bi-County application, Health Care Management would be paid 5 percent of net operating revenue as a management fee. This creates a conflict with Bi-County's not-for-profit status by building in a management incentive to maximize profitable procedures and minimize less profitable procedures regardless of community needs. Also, since Health Care Management primarily owns and operates rural hospitals, the Bi- County application builds in the real possibility that Health Care Management eventually would buy Bi-County from Faulkenberg and the other principals and change it to for-profit status. No management contract has as yet been entered into between Bi-County and Health Care Management. However, in light of Faulkenberg's experience, there is more assurance that Bi- County would be properly managed, subject to the reservations of the preceding paragraph, than that Land O'Lakes would. Quality Of Care (Section 381.494(6)(c)3., Florida Statutes 1985). Land O'Lakes' ability to provide quality care is dependent upon the establish of a relationship with UCH. Without UCH, Land O'Lakes as proposed would not provide necessary ancillary services and support and would not be able to operate a twenty-four hour emergency room. Assuming the Land O'Lakes-UCH relationship, however, the Land O'Lakes proposal would be able to provide quality care. There was sufficient evidence to prove that Bi- County would be able to provide quality care. There was little evidence as to the availability of health manpower (Section 381.494(6)(c)8., Florida Statutes 1985) to operate either Land O'Lakes or Bi-County. However, it would appear that the more serious issue than the availability of doctors and nurses to care for the patients is the availability of patients to support the doctors and nurses. If the need for the hospital services is there, doctors and nurses can be expected to follow. Need In Relation To State And District Health Plans (Section 381.491(6)(c)1., Florida Statutes 1985). State Health Plan. Goal 1 under the Florida State Health Plan is "to develop acute care resources in the quantity and mix which appropriately meet population needs in the most cost-efficient manner. The first objective under that goal is for the ratio of acute care hospital beds per one thousand of Florida's population be less then 4.11 by 1989. At this time, there are approximately 53,000 hospital beds in Florida, approximately 2000 to 7000 too many under the health plan's objective. The health plan recommends that increases in the supply of hospital beds in Florida be restrained through the state certificate of need program. Objective 2.2 under Goal 1 of the State Health Plan is to assure that acute care hospital services are available and accessible to urban residents within 30 minutes average one way driving time through 1989. The plan recommends that sub-districts with net need for beds be identified and acute care beds reallocated to subdistricts exhibiting need or inadequate access. This objective and recommendation is designed to help meet Goal 2 under the State Health Plan "to insure adequate access to acute care resources for all Floridians." Goal 3 under the state health plan is "to promote the efficient utilization of acute care services." Objective 3.1 under Goal 3 is to attain an average annual occupancy rate of at least 80 percent by 1989 for all non- federal, short stay hospital beds considered together in each planning district. Again, the plan recommends that increases in the supply of licensed hospital beds in Florida be restrained through the state certificate of need program. The 80 percent occupancy standard applies for both allopathic and osteopathic hospital beds. It is not met state-wide in Florida, in District 5 (consisting of Pasco and pinellas Counties), in Pasco county or in Pinellas county. Occupancy rate for all acute care hospital beds in each subdistrict of District 5 for 1985 were: West Pasco 61 percent East Pasco 55 percent North Pinellas 61 percent South Pinellas 62 percent The same occupancy rates for medical/surgical, intensive care and cardiac care beds only were: West Pasco 63 percent East Pasco 58 percent North Pinellas 58 percent South Pinellas 50 percent The State Health Plan does not specifically address the need for osteopathic acute care hospital beds. District 5 Health Plan. Neither does the District 5 Health Plan specifically address the need for osteopathic acute care hospital beds. The District 5 Health Plan does, however, set forth policies intended to promote access for the indigent population to adequate health care. To promote this policy, the District 5 Health Plan states that future expansion of acute care hospital facilities should be through existing providers with a history as major providers of care to the medically indigent. The plan also states that future changes in the hospital facilities and services systems in District 5 should occur so as to maintain the fiscal and programmatic integrity of institutions providing a full range of services with documented access for the total community irrespective of ability to pay. Land O'Lakes and Bi- County, as proposed new providers, have no history to look at. Meanwhile, intervenor Riverside Hospital is the designated provider of hospital care for the indigent population in west Pasco County. Even so, its occupancy rate for 1986 has averaged only between 40 and 45 percent. 11.2 percent of its admissions, or 353 admissions in 1985, were from the Land O'Lakes area. At an average length of stay of 6 days, that translates to 2,118 patients from the Land O'Lakes area in 1985. At average gross revenue per patient stay between eight hundred fifty and one thousand dollars in 1986, the Land O'Lakes patient days represent approximately between one million eight hundred thousand and two million one hundred thousand dollars of gross patient revenue to Riverside Hospital. While the evidence did not quantify how much net patient revenue this represents, neither did the applicants, Land O'Lakes and Bi-County, prove that their proposed hospitals in Land O'Lakes would not seriously adversely affect the fiscal and programmatic integrity of Riverside Hospital. (Land O'Lakes forecast that it will capture 80 percent of the market of the Land O'Lakes area.) The District 5 Health Plan also adopts the policy of optimizing utilization of existing resources in District 5. The health plan states that additions to the inpatient acute care bed complement in a designated subdistrict should not be considered unless a numeric bed need is shown and, in the case of medical/surgical ICU and CCU services, the occupancy rate of existing subdistrict bed inventory is 80 percent. As seen in Findings Of Fact 29 through 32 below, there is no district need in the applicable subdistrict. But even if there were, the 1985 occupancy rate for existing services in the East Pasco subdistrict was only 58 percent. To optimize utilization, the District 5 plan also cautions that no additional acute care beds should be added to the inventory of a subdistrict which would result in a greater number than indicated by the bed need methodology except under extraordinary circumstances and in compliance with the directive referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph. See Findings Of Fact 29 through 32, below, for application of the bed need methodology. The District 5 Health Plan also includes a section on accessibility which states: "Travel time is not an obstacle in Pasco county, as all residents are within an average of 30 minutes of hospital services on an annual basis. This meets the time travel criterion for urban areas in the State adopted acute care rule". See Findings Of Fact 40 through 48, below, on accessibility. Uniform Bed Need Methodology. The uniform state-wide methodology for determining and forecasting acute care hospital need in HRS's planning districts is contained in Rule 10-5.11(23), Florida Administrative Code (1984) and (1985 Supp.). The division of District 5 into subdistricts and the allocation of bed need to designated subdistricts in District 5 is contained in Rule 10-17.006, Florida Administrative Code (1985 Supp.). The bed need methodologies forecast bed need at certain times, or planning horizons, in the future. Before the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District of Florida, in Gulf Court Nursing Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 483 So.2d 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), HRS had a policy of forecasting acute care hospital bed need on a planning horizon five years from the date of the final formal administrative hearing. After the decision in Gulf Court, to make Gulf Court more workable and more consistent with reality, HRS now has a policy of interpreting the "fixed pool of beds" referred to in the decision to mean the planning horizon on which bed need is forecasted. HRS now has a policy of forecasting acute care hospital bed need on the bi-annual planning horizon closest to, without exceeding, five years from the date for filing applications for a particular batching cycle. The application filing date for the batching cycle in which Land O'Lakes and Bi- County filed their applications was November 1983. The applicable planning horizon under the HRS policy is July 1988. Under the policy, its makes no difference whether HRS notifies one or more applicants in a batching cycle of alleged errors or omissions or whether one or more applicants file documents intending to cure the alleged errors or omissions, as Land O'Lakes did in this case in April 1984. The HRS policy for determining the planning horizon for a batching cycle is a reasonable interpretation of the Gulf Court decision. Under Rule 10-17.006, Florida Administrative Code (1985 Supp.), the Land O'Lakes area, which includes the proposed location of both the Land O'Lakes hospital and the Bi-County hospital, is within the East Pasco county subdistrict of District 5, near the border of the west Pasco County subdistrict. There is relatively little population or potential for new population just west of the subdistrict border in the west Pasco subdistrict. Using the uniform state-wide methodology, there is an excess of 429 acute care hospital beds forecasted in July 1988 (assuming the 1986 existing and approved bed inventory is not increased). However, by use of the rule method for allocating forecasted bed need to the subdistricts, there would be a need forecast for July 1988 in both the East Pasco and west Pasco subdistricts of District 5. But the need in the East Pasco subdistrict will only be 18 beds. (The need in west Pasco will be only 70 beds.) Osteopathic Acute care Bed Need (Section 381.494(2), Florida Statutes 1985). District 5 has not been divided into subdistricts for purposes of determining and forecasting the need for osteopathic acute care hospital beds. There was no evidence that it is reasonable to divide District 5 into subdistricts for this purpose. Nor was there any evidence what accessibility standard should apply to osteopathic acute care hospital beds only. There are only four osteopathic acute care hospitals in District 5, all located in Pinellas county. Using the current osteopathic use rate in District 5 and the current average length of stay in District 5, a need for only 376 osteopathic beds in District 5 is forecast for July 1988, assuming 80 percent occupancy. Currently, there are 662 osteopathic beds in District 5, resulting in a forecast net excess of 286 beds in the district in July 1988 assuming that the current osteopathic bed inventory is not increased. In 1985, the 662 osteopathic beds in District 5 were only 44 percent occupied; in other words, on any given day in 1985 there were an average of approximately 370 empty osteopathic beds. Using the Pinellas County osteopathic use rate, a need for 94 osteopathic beds in Pasco County can be forecast in July 1988, assuming 80 percent occupancy. But that forecast is greater than the actual need. Osteopathic hospital use by Pasco County residents is included in the Pinellas County use rate, but none of the Pinellas County osteopathic hospital beds are allocated to Pasco County for purposes of the forecast. The evidence did not prove that there is enough need for osteopathic acute care hospital beds in District 5 to support and justify the proposed 100- bed Bi-County Hospital. This finding is buttressed by the fact that, at current admission rates and the 80 percent occupancy standard, it would take another 374 more osteopathic physicians to fill the osteopathic beds in District 5 in July 1988 if the Bi-County Hospital is added to the inventory. Such an increase in the number of osteopathic physicians in District 5 is highly unlikely. Hospital beds also are available at Carrollwood Community Hospital. Carrollwood Community is accredited by the AOA and is dedicated to and does create an environment in which both osteopathic and allopathic physicians can practice medicine. The chief of staff is an osteopath, and five of the seven department chiefs are osteopaths. Although the credentials committee has three allopaths to two osteopaths and although some disgruntled osteopaths have complained about the current administration of the hospital, Carollwood Community qualifies as an osteopathic hospital. It has 120 medical/surgical and ICU/CCU beds of which only 49 percent were occupied in 1985. Carrollwood Community is in north Hillsborough County within approximately 30 minutes average drive time from the Land O'Lakes area. Finally, although not strictly speaking an osteopathic hospital, Riverside Hospital in West Pasco County, approximately 30 to 45 minutes from the Land O'Lakes area, also provides services for osteopathic physicians and patients. Riverside Hospital offers a full range of osteopathic services and treatment. The chief of staff is an osteopath; it has a three member board of trustees of whom one is a D.O. There are no restrictions to admission of patients to the hospital as osteopathic patients, nor restrictions to admission to the staff to osteopaths, and the admissions for physicians is by a five- member medical executive committee which has on it three M.D.'s and two D.O.'s. Approximately 17 percent of Riverside's medical/surgical and ICU/CCU admissions in 1985 were osteopathic admissions. In 1985, Riverside's medical/surgical and ICU/CCU occupancy rate was 53 percent; in other words, on the average approximately 41 of Riverside's 88 medical/surgical and ICU/CCU beds were empty on any given day. Availability And Accessibility Of Existing Beds (Section 381.494(6)(c)2. Florida Statutes 1985). Availability. Due to low occupancy rates at existing acute care hospitals in Pasco County and Hillsborough county, there are plenty of acute care hospital beds available for use by residents of Land O'Lakes area. The following hospitals are within an average of approximately 30 minutes to an hour of the Land O'Lakes area: Humana Hospital in Dade city; East Pasco Medical center in zephyr Hills; Riverside Hospital and community Hospital of New Port Richey in New Port Richey; and Bayonet Point Regional Medical center in Hudson. In addition, Carrollwood community Hospital and University community Hospital in north Hillsborough county in HRS District 6 are within approximately 30 minutes of the Land O'Lakes area. On the average, those hospitals had the following empty beds on any given day in 1985: Hospital # of Beds Medical/Surgical & Empty ICU/CCU Occupancy Beds Rate East Pasco Medical center 76 72 percent 21 Humana Hospital Dade city 102 47 percent 54 Riverside 88 53 percent 41 Community Hospital New Port Richey 112 Bayonet Point 200 58 percent 84 Carrollwood Community 120 49 percent 61 University Community Hospital 364 58 percent 153 Leaving aside the question of accessibility, there was no evidence that any of these empty hospital beds are inadequate or inappropriate or that they offer less than quality care. Accessibility. Land O'Lakes did not retain a travel time expert to testify at the final hearing. Instead, it retained the services of a Pasco County deputy sheriff, who testified on factual matters but gave no opinion. Deputy Sheriff Campbell used as a starting point in the Land O'Lakes area for his trips to various area hospitals a point near the back of the largest subdivision in Land O'Lakes, Lake Padgett Estates, approximately 7 to 8 minutes into the subdivision from the main highways he had to access for the trips. Even so, his trips to University Community Hospital in north Hillsborough County took very close to just 30 minutes in peak traffic within a few weeks before the final hearing in August 1986. Although winter traffic maybe somewhat heavier, the Land O'Lakes area should not be expected to be greatly influenced by the influx of "snowbirds" during the winter. In any event, Land O'Lakes offered no competent testimony to the average travel times on an annual basis on the routes Deputy Campbell took. Land O'Lakes offered absolutely no evidence as to the travel time to Carrollwood Community Hospital, which other evidence placed at an average of 20 to 25 minutes south of the intersection of Pasco County Road 54 and US Highway 41, the main intersection in Land O'Lakes. Deputy Campbell also did not drive to the new Countryside Hospital southwest of Land O'Lakes which probably is the closest hospital to one of the few substantial residential areas west of Land O'Lakes, Sierra Pines. Bi-County offered the testimony and opinions 05 a time travel expert. However, Bi-County's evidence reflected average travel times along pertient road segments in both directions, not average travel times just in the direction from Land O'Lakes to the area hospitals in question. Bi-County's expert relatively randomly drove all over Pasco and Hillsborough county at various times on various different days over a period of several years. He then accumulated his data to arrive at average times in both directions along certain segments of roadway. He could not testify to exactly when the various trips which made up segment averages were made and could not testify in which direction he traveled. It was impossible to test how fairly the road segment travel times were averaged. To simulate trips from the Land O'Lakes area to area hospitals, Bi- county's expert summed the roadway segment travel times and added what he called average delays for intersections and turns. This method further decreased the accuracy of the resulting travel times. Despite the weakness of Bi-County's evidence, even its evidence was clear that the Land O'Lakes area is not now more than 30 minutes travel time from a hospital under average travel conditions. Except for a few isolated complaints, there was no evidence of any sufficiently widespread complaints by patients in the Land O'Lakes area about the distance they have to travel to a hospital. Neither HRS nor the District 5 Local Health council has received any complaints about inaccessibility of the Land O'Lakes area to an acute care hospital. Most complaints were directed to the travel required for standard blood work and x-rays. But, being largely a bedroom community for people employed in Tampa, many Land O'Lakes residents are in the Tampa area during normal business hours in any event. In addition, carrollwood and an osteopath are planning a joint venture to open a medical clinic in Land O'Lakes which would make some of these type services available in Land O'Lakes. Neither Land O'Lakes nor Bi-County proved the population of the portion of the Land O'Lakes area more than 30 minutes average drive from a hospital, even assuming the accuracy of the average drive time evidence. The population in the Land O'Lakes area at this time is just approximately fifteen thousand. Despite testimony projecting the population in 1989 to be at incredibly higher levels, the population of the Land O'Lakes area in 1989 should not be expected to be more than twenty five thousand. The inflated projections assume rates of build-up of large developments of regional impact that are unreasonably high or, at best, speculative. Meanwhile, the approximate current population of the East Pasco subdistrict is approximately seventy three thousand. There was no evidence of projected East Pasco subdistrict population in 1989. If portions of the Land O'Lakes area are beyond 30 minutes average drive time from the hospital in 1989, they will be portions north of Pasco County Road 54. Yet there is evidence that there are now 2,000 homes in the Land O'Lakes area south of County Road 54 and 4500 homes north of it. There was no competent evidence to forecast the size of the population which might be more than 30 minutes from a hospital, even under the applicants' average drive time evidence. Probable Impact On Cost (Section 381.494(6)(c)12., Florida Statutes 1985). Due to the lack of numeric need for additional beds in District 5 or the East Pasco County subdistrict and the lack of proof of inaccessibility justifying 100 additional beds in the Land O'Lakes area, the granting of either the Land O'Lakes or the Bi-County application probably will result in unnecessary duplication of hospitals services. The probable impact of the unnecessary of duplication of hospital services referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph will be higher hospital costs charged in order to pay for the capital investment in the hospitals affected. In addition, 100 new beds in the Land O'Lakes area likely would result in lower occupancy rates in at least some of the area hospitals and a low occupancy rate at the proposed new Land O'Lakes hospitals. Currently occupancy rates already are quite low. See Finding Of Fact 39, above. A further reduction could adversely affect the financial viability of one or more of the area hospitals. Extremely low occupancy rates could also have the effect of lowering overall quality of patient care. First, efficiency and skill in caring for patients and performing hospital procedures is likely to go down if the frequency with which those services are performed declines enough. Second, as hospital profits decline, adjustments will have to be made as hospitals seek to maintain financial viability. The necessary adjustments are likely to cost the patient some degree of quality of care. Financial Feasibility (Section 381.494(6)(c)9., Florida Statutes 1985). Immediate Financial Feasibility. Both applicants, Land O'Lakes and Bi-county, have been able to persuade investment bankers that their proposed projects are worthy of a commitment to fund the cost of the projects. However, at this stage in the development of a new hospital, the investment banker's commitment has certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the borrower obtain a certificate of need and clear the detailed financial feasibility study performed by a major accounting firm. Therefore, the proof of immediate feasibility is contingent upon proof of long-term feasibility. Both applicants, Land O'Lakes and Bi-County, proved that they have or can borrow the capital necessary to pay for the cost of borrowing sufficient capital to fund the construction of the projects. Long-term Financial Feasibility. Land O'Lakes projects a $1,147,197 excess of total revenues over expenses in yea two of operation (1990). However, Land O'Lakes' projection is liberal on the revenue side and conservative on the expense side in several respects. On the revenue side, Land O'Lakes' utilization forecasts are generated using a use rate of 900 patient days per thousand population. This utilization rate is unreasonably high. A use rate of 800 is more reasonable. The use of the 900 patient day per thousand use rate inflates the excess of total revenues over expenses by approximately 11 percent or approximately $126,000 in year 2. Land O'Lakes used a speculative method for projecting the population in the Land O'Lakes area in 1990. Rather than using any officially published demographic projections of population by census tract or other similar geographic area, Land O'Lakes' expert projected population by counting residential units in permitted developments of regional impact, assuming 2.8 people per unit, and assuming an optimistic rate of build-up of the development. The projection method is speculative and unreasonable,, and Land O'Lakes' 1990 projection of thirty nine thousand people in the Land O'Lakes area probably is ten thousand or more too high. An over-estimate of this magnitude (approximately 12.8 percent or more) would result in erroneously inflated projected revenue of approximately $294,000 or more. Land O'Lakes also projects capturing 80 percent of the Land O'Lakes area patient base by year 2. The projected market share is probably approximately 12.5 percent too high. This over estimate would result in excess of total revenues over expenses being approximately $143,000 too high. On the expense side, it has been mentioned that the low staffing proposed for the Land O'Lakes Hospital is dependent upon the establishment of a relationship with University Community Hospital. If the relationship is not established, Land O'Lakes' cost could be under-estimated by approximately one million dollars due to under-staffing. Even with the UCH relationship, Land O'Lakes' proposed staffing seems low, being approximately 50 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) lower than one would expect in a full-service, free- standing one hundred bed hospital. In addition, the cost of the Land O'Lakes project does not include the cost of a telephone system. There was no evidence as to the approximate cost of a telephone system or to the probable impact of that omission on Land O'Lakes' longterm feasible. Finally, Land O'Lakes' financial projections assume not-for-profit status in omitting approximately two hundred thousand dollars of state sales tax from the cost of equipment to be purchased. There was no evidence as to the impact of two hundred thousand dollars of additional capital cost on the project's long-term feasibility. The Bi-county application also projects break-even during year two of operations and projects net income of $1,138,600 in year 2. Bi-County's utilization forecasts are more reasonable than Land O'Lakes. Their major flaw is the assumption that a high district wide osteopathic use rate, influenced by osteopathic use in Pinellas county, should be applied to Pasco county. In addition, Bi-County's projected outpatient revenue of approximately $1,737,700 in year 2 would be difficult to achieve with only two surgery suites, as proposed in the Bi-County application. On the expense side, however, Bi-County seriously under-estimates the expenses necessary to generate the revenues forecast. Bi-county proposes a full-service, 100-bed, free-standing hospital with a 24 hour emergency room. (Bi-County also proposes an osteopathic internship program but does not propose to start the program within the first two years of operation.) Yet it proposes to staff the hospital with only 162 full-time equivalent positions (FTEs) in year two of operations, approximately 3.24 paid FTEs per occupied bed. This low staffing results in under-estimating expenses by approximately $620,000. In addition, Bi-County's application does not address how its financial feasibility would be affected by the contributions Bi-County would have to make to, and the payments Bi-County would receive from, the Florida Public Medical Assistance Trust Fund. Section 395.101, Florida Statutes (1985), requires hospitals to pay one and one half percent of their net operating revenue into the trust fund. Payments to hospitals from the trust fund are determined by a formula which measures the extent to which the hospital services the indigent population. There was no effort to forecast how the formula would apply to Bi- County. (In fairness to Bi-County, there also was no explicit evidence whether the Land O'Lakes application addresses these considerations.) Like the Land O'Lakes application, Bi-County's equipment costs assume not-for-profit status, saving approximately $175,000 in Florida sales tax. There was no evidence how an additional $175,000 in capital cost would affect the long-term financial feasibility of Bi-County's application in the event Bi- County became a for-profit organization. Finally, Bi-County's application does not take into consideration attorneys' fees that will have to be expended in obtaining underwriting for the project or approximately 15 to 18 thousand dollars of attorneys fees for the certificate of need litigation involved in this case. There was no evidence how the omission of those costs might affect the long-term financial feasibility of the Bi-County proposal. As a result of the extent to which the applicants' net income for year 2 of operations has been over-estimated, and the extent to which questions concerning the applicants' ability to achieve even that much net income in year 2 of operations, neither applicant proved that their projects are financially feasible in the long term. Probably Economics And Improvements From Joint, Corporative, Or Shared Health Care Resources (Section 381.494(6)(c)s., Florida Statutes 1985). If the Land O'Lakes/UCH relationship is established, the Land O'Lakes application has the opportunity for significant economics and improvements in service. Through use of UCH ancillary and support services, Land O'Lakes would be able to operate with fewer full-time equivalent positions on its staff. UCH management of Land O'Lakes could result in significant economies of scale which could redound to the benefit of the patient of one or both of the facilities. It even is possible that Land O'Lakes could become a virtual satellite of UCH, with the attendant benefits. However, it also is possible that acute emergency patients from Land O'Lakes will not benefit from the Land O'Lakes Hospital if attempted economies require such patients to continue to be transported to UCH because certain major emergencies are designed not to be handled at Land O' Lakes. similarly, Bi-County is discussing a management agreement with BAMI which could result in some of the same economies of scale. It is possible that Bi-County and its patients could benefit from savings in the cost of management through use of BAMI's central accounting and other management functions and from BAMI's ability to obtain hospital supplies, equipment and pharmaceuticals at discounts. Need For Research And Educational Facilities (Section 381.494(6)(c)7., Florida Statutes 1985). UCH is a teaching hospital. However, the Land O'Lakes application does not in any way base need on the potential for use of Land O'Lakes as a research or educational facility for UCH. There was no evidence in that regard. Bi-County does propose osteopathic internship programs. However, there was no persuasive proof of a need for osteopathic internship programs in Land O'Lakes or District 5. Florida is training 5.3 percent of the nation's osteopathic students but only 2.5 percent of the allopathic students in the U.S. District 5 has the largest concentration of osteopathic hospitals and osteopathic internship program- in the State of Florida. There are 15 osteopathic hospitals in Florida, 7 of which have internship programs. 4 of those hospitals, and 2 of the internship programs, already are located in District 5. In addition to the absence of proof, there was no evidence or argument on the parts of the Bi-County application proposing an internship program. Doctor Faulkenberg, one of Bi-County's principals, testified that there were no plans for an internship program within the first 2 years of operations. Bi- County did not provide much assurance when or if an internship program would be instituted. In any event, Bi-County provided no more assurance than the evidence that Carrollwood Community Hospital plans an osteopathic internship program within the next year or two provided assurance that that program would in fact be established. Other Criteria. Availability And Adequacy Of Non-Hospital Services (Section 381.494(6)(c)4., Florida Statutes 1985). Some hospital services can be replaced with outpatient care, ambulatory surgery and home care services. Carrollwood Community Hospital and a Land O'Lakes osteopath are now embarking on a joint venture to open a medical clinic in Land O'Lakes. In addition, an ambulatory surgery facility is about to open in Land O'Lakes. These facilities can offer some outpatient surgical procedures and minor emergency treatment. Generally, the applications in this case do not rely upon the provision of those services to justify need. However, Land O'Lakes only proposes emergency room service part of the time, relying on UCH to cover emergencies 24 hours, and does not propose full ancillary support and services, again in reliance on UCH. To that extent, the existing UCH services are an alternative to new construction in Land O'Lakes. Need Not Reasonably And Economically Accessible In Adjoining Areas (Section 381.494(6)(c)6., Florida Statutes 1985). There was no evidence of any need in District for special equipment and services to be provided by either Land O'Lakes or Bi-County which are not already reasonably and economically accessible in areas adjoining District 5 special Needs And circumstances Of Health Maintenance Organizations (Section 381.494(6)(c)10., Florida statutes 1985). There was no evidence of any special needs or circumstances of health maintenance organizations which would be pertinent to either the Land O'Lakes or the Bi-County application. Provision Of Substantial Services To Individuals Not Residing In District 5 (Section 381.494(6)(c)11. Florida statutes 1985). There was no evidence that either the Land O'Lakes application or the Bi-County application would provide a substantial portion of services or resources to individuals not residing in District 5 or that there is a need for a hospital in Land O'Lakes for this purpose. Energy And Cost Efficiency (Section 381.494(6)(c)13., Florida Statutes 1985). The evidence sufficiently proved that both the Land O'Lakes application and the Bi-County application proposed costs and methods of construction which are reasonably energy and cost efficient. The evidence did not suggest that any alternative methods of construction are available that would be substantially less costly or more effective. Required Findings (Section 381.494(d), Florida Statutes 1985). It cannot be found that less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to the inpatient services proposed by Land O'Lakes and Bi-County are not available or that the development of such alternatives have been studied and have been found not practicable. Since there is no numeric need for 100 additional beds located in Land O'Lakes and area hospitals are running occupancy rates well below the 80 percent standard, utilization of existing hospital beds is a less costly, more efficient and more appropriate alternative which is practicable. It can be inferred from the evidence that existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services proposed by Land O'Lakes and Bi-County are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner except that those facilities are running low occupancy rates. Alternatives to new construction for example modernization or sharing arrangements have been considered but are not practicable in relation to the Land O'Lakes and Bi-County applications. The evidence did not prove that patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of one of the proposed new services. Balanced Consideration. After giving a balanced consideration to all of the pertinent statutory and rule criteria, it is found that there is no need or justification for either the Land O'Lakes application or the Bi-County application. Of all the criteria, the most significant was geographic accessibility. The applicants did not prove that accessibility considerations justify the construction of a 100-bed hospital in Land O'Lakes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying both the application of Land O'Lakes Hospital, Inc., in Case No. 84-1509 and the application of Bi-County Community Hospital, Inc., in Case No. 84-1900. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of January 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 2nd day of January, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 84-1509 AND 84-1900 These rulings are made to comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Bi-County's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-4. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. 7-8. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. (Carrollwood is "osteopathic.") Accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. (Harborside is "osteopathic.") Conclusion of law. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Accepted that there would be no difficulty staffing; rejected that osteopaths in Pinellas would make it particularly "conducive" for Bi-County. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted but unnecessary. Land O'Lakes Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated. 2-3. Unnecessary. 4. Accepted and incorporated. 5 First sentence, accepted; second sentence, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; third sentence, subordinate. Not proved. Proved only to the extent that it becomes a satellite of UCH. Conclusion of law. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted. Subordinate. Not proved; not particularly relevant. Accepted but unnecessary. Subordinate to facts alleged but not proved. Accepted but unnecessary. 17.-18. Subordinate to facts alleged but not proved. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Subordinate. Subordinate. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found since short-term financing is dependent on long-term feasibility. Rejected as being a summary of some of the evidence, not a finding. Rejected as not proved. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but unnecessary. Subordinate. Accepted but not necessary. Accepted with qualifications reflected in facts found. Rejected. There is no Pasco subdistrict. The total East and west Pasco is 88. Rejected. Underutilization proved; inaccessibility not proved. Accepted, assuming UCH involvement. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted and incorporated. Cumulative. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated. 41.-42. Subordinate to facts found. Rejected. There is some osteopathic need in Pasco. Accepted except for the last sentence, which is rejected. Subordinate. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as summary of some evidence, not a finding. Subordinate to facts found; unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Subordinate to facts found. 51.-52. Argument. 53.-54. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Incomplete and incomprehensible. 57.-58. Subordinate to facts found. Argument. Second and third sentences are accepted but not necessary; the rest is cumulative. Accepted but unnecessary. First sentence accepted and incorporated; second sentence is accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Bi-County's financial feasibility was not proved. Accepted and incorporated in part, subordinate in part. Accepted but unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Irrelevant. 67.-68. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 69. Conclusion of law. 70.-72. Cumulative. 73. Rejected as contrary to facts found. HRS/Riverside/Harborside Joint Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-3. Accepted and incorporated. Subordinate to facts found. Unnecessary. 6-7. Accepted but unnecessary. 8.-9. Accepted and incorporated. 10. Accepted but unnecessary. 11.-12. Accepted and incorporated except where subordinate and unnecessary. 13.-20. Accepted but unnecessary. 21. Accepted and incorporated. 22.-23. Accepted but unnecessary. 24. Accepted and incorporated. 25.-29. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Conclusion of law. 36.-39. Accepted and incorporated. 40. Accepted and incorporated except where subordinate. 41.-44. Subordinate to facts found. 45. Accepted and incorporated. 46.-48. Subordinate to facts found. 49. Accepted Incorporated as to Riverside; unnecessary as to Harborside. 50.-51. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Subordinate to facts found. (Land O'Lakes FTEs are adequate assuming the UCH relationship.) 34 54. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. 57.-59. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 60. First sentence accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 61.-63. Subordinate and unnecessary. 64.-69. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Cumulative. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated except where subordinate. 74 First sentence unnecessary; second sentence accepted and incorporated. 75. Accepted and incorporated except the implication that "specificity" and exact "accuracy" is necessary at this stage of a project is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 76.-77. Subordinate and unnecessary. 78. Rejected as contrary to facts found. 79.-81. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated. 84.-86. Subordinate to facts found. 87.-88. Accepted and Incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted that 80 percent is too high, but 50 percent-60 percent is too low. First sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; second sentence accepted and incorporated. 92.-95. Subordinate to facts found. 96.-97. Cumulative. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but unnecessary. See 75, above. Unnecessary. Subordinate to facts alleged but not proved. 105.-106. Subordinate to facts found. 107.-1OB. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 109.-110. Cumulative. Some patients would come from outside Land O'Lakes, but not as many as Bi-County projects. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 114.-116. Subordinate to facts found. 117. First sentence subordinate to facts found; second sentence rejected as contrary to facts found. 118.-119. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but unnecessary. 122.-123. Accepted and incorporated. 124.-129. Accepted but unnecessary. 130.-132. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but unnecessary. Cumulative. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary. Subordinate to facts found. 139.-140. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary. First sentence unnecessary; second cumulative. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Cumulative. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence cumulative; rest subordinate to facts found. 146.-147. Accepted and incorporated. D. HRS' Supplemental Proposed Findings Of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Said another way, applicants did not prove inaccessibility. Accepted. Incorporated in large part. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but unnecessary. Cumulative. Accepted. Incorporated to the extent necessary. Accepted and incorporated. Unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary. 11.-12. Accepted and incorporated. Unnecessary. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary. Accepted and incorporated. Irrelevant. 18.-19. Subordinate to facts found. 20.-21. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, cumulative. Accepted but not necessary. Accepted but not necessary. Conclusion of law and unnecessary. First sentence, conclusion of law; rest, subordinate. Accepted incorporated in part; in large part, subordinate. Subordinate to facts found. See 27 above. 30.-33. Subordinate to facts found. 34. Accepted but not necessary. 35 (a) Subordinate to facts found and unnecessary; (b) accepted in part, but rejected in part as conclusion of law and unnecessary; (c)-(f) subordinate to fact found; Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary. Cumulative and subordinate. Rejected, not proved. Accepted. Incorporated in part; in part subordinate. Subordinate to facts found; unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire Harold F. X. Purnell Oertel & Hoffman, P. A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Charles D. Hood, Esquire Post Office Box 191 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3300 Leonard A. Carson, Esquire Bruce A. Leinback, Esquire Carson & Linn, P. A. Mahan Station 1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Page, Jr. Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven W. Huss, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
