Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Gulf Coast Home Health Service of Florida, Inc. is an existing licensed provider of Medicare-certified home health services in Pinellas County. The parties have stipulated that Gulf Coast has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. Metro Home Health Care, Inc. is a proprietary agency owned by Ann Durham, Robert Carver and John Timp, a Certified Public Accountant. Metro was incorporated in November of 1984 and has been operating as a home health agency since June of 1985. It currently provides facility staffing with nurses, nurses' aides and mental health workers, and also takes private duty calls from hospitals. Due to the fact that so many patients who are in need of home health care are elderly and eligible for Medicare, referring hospitals and physicians attempt to utilize those home health agencies which are Medicare-certified. Metro proposes to expand its services to provide treatment to Medicare patients, and thus filed an application for a Certificate of Need in December of 1985. A home health agency in Florida must obtain a Certificate of Need from HRS before it can be licensed and become eligible to receive Medicare reimbursement. As the agency is already operational, there is no cost associated with this project. Metro realizes that there is a lag time between the provision of services to Medicare patients and Medicare reimbursement for such services. In order to avoid interest costs, Metro proposes to utilize the profits from its current staffing services to support its home health care program, in lieu of using a commercial line-of credit. Metro believes, however, that lines of credit with banking institutions can be acquired if operational funds are needed in the future. Metro has encouraged and supported the training and continuous education of its staff by providing information and funds for courses offered in the community. It intends to continue this practice. Metro proposes to provide skilled nursing services, physical therapy services, occupational therapy services, speech therapy services, IV therapy, rehabilitative services, social services and home health aid services. Some of these services will be obtained on a contractual basis, as opposed to in-house staffing, depending upon the need for and utilization of such services. Metro proposes to provide two percent of its services to Medicaid patients and two percent of its services to indigent patients during the first year after obtaining a Certificate of Need. During its first year as a Medicare-certified provider, it is anticipated that Metro will provide approximately 75 percent of its services to Medicare patients, 10.5 percent to private pay patients, 10.5 percent to third-party payor patients and 4 percent to Medicaid and indigent patients. In its second year, Metro proposes an aggregate of five percent of its services to be offered to Medicaid and indigent patients. By the end of its first decade, the intent is to have incrementally increased the level of service to indigent and Medicaid patients to ten percent. Metro's current charges for skilled nursing care are in the median range of charges by other home health agencies in the area. Charges for this service range between $40.00 and $60.00, and Metro charges $47.00 per visit. While Metro's Director, a registered nurse, did not have intimate knowledge of the bookkeeping, interim payment reports, cost reports, record keeping or computerization required by Medicare, one of the owners of Metro is a Certified Public Accountant. Since the filing of the Certificate of Need application, the owners of Metro have met with an assigned intermediary for the Medicare program, and they have discussed the completion of forms, patient claims and annual reports, as well as the Medicare reimbursement system. The Medicare program reimburses providers at a rate which represents the lowest of either costs, charges or the Medicare cap for the service provided. Thus, there is little or no profit element in the provision of Medicare services. However, Metro will realize a positive net income through the provision of services to Medicare, private, third party payor, Medicaid and indigent mix of patients proposed for the first year of operation. This is true even with a tripling of the amount of calculated contractual allowances set forth in Metro's application. The figures and projections contained in the pro forma statement of revenues and expenses included in Metro's Certificate of Need application are outdated and some of the utilization estimates may be exaggerated. However, Metro is of the opinion that its existing profits which have greatly increased since the date of its application, will enable it to operate in a financially feasible manner on both an immediate and long-term basis. Metro desires to offer Medicare services so that it will be competitive with other agencies which do so and can receive a fair share of referrals. Hopefully, more referrals will include more private pay and insurance covered patients, which will produce greater profits. The reimbursement rate for services to Medicaid patients is even lower than for Medicare patients, though it has recently been raised. The per visit reimbursement rate for Medicare purposes can be negatively affected by increasing the number of Medicaid and indigent patients served. It would not be financially feasible for a home health agency which served only Medicare patients to provide Medicaid and indigent services. When HRS initially reviewed Metro's application, it utilized an invalid methodology to determine the need for additional home health services in Pinellas County. HRS no longer utilizes this methodology and did not attempt to do so during the final administrative hearing. HRS does not presently have any methodology pursuant to rule or policy for projecting numeric need for new home health agencies. Instead, it looks at the general statutory criteria applicable to Certificate of Need review for all health care services. There were no numeric need methodologies for home health care services offered at the final hearing. While neither the State Health Plan nor the local District Health Plan specifically address or identify the need for home health agencies, both plans emphasize the improvement of access to the medically underserved. There are approximately 29 licensed and approved Medicare-certifed home health agencies in District 5, which includes Pinellas County.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED THAT Metro Home Health Care, Inc. be GRANTED a Certificate of Need to operate a home health agency in Pinellas County, with the condition that a minimum of two percent of total visits be provided to Medicaid patients and two percent of total visits be provided to indigent patients. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th day of November, 1987, 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 5th day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3556 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner Gulf Coast: 9. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 10, 11. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 13-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 17. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 22. Rejected as hearsay. 23-27. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 29-30. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 31. Partially rejected. It must be assumed that goals in the State and District Plans reflect need. 36. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Last sentence accepted. 38. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 39 & 41. Rejected as too broad a conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. 45. Second sentence rejected as hearsay. 50, 51, & 53. Rejected, not supported by sufficient evidence. Last sentence accepted only if private pay or insurance-covered patients are not considered. Last sentence accepted only if private pay or insurance-covered patients are not considered. 60. Accepted only-if it is assumed that the percentage of care rendered to private pay or insurance-covered patients decreases. 62 & 63. These factual findings are accepted, but are incomplete in that they fail to recognize the importance of becoming a Medicare-certified provider in order to also obtain referrals of non-Medicare patients. 64-73. These "findings of fact" are addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Respondent HRS: p. 3, last full sentence Accepted only if it is assumed the agency serves only Medicare patients. p. 4, last sentence of first full paragraph Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. Respondent Metro: The "proposed recommended order" submitted on Metro's behalf does not contain proposed findings of fact, and is more in the nature of closing argument. Consequently, it is not possible to render specific rulings upon Metro's proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard A. Carson, Esquire Carson & Linn, P.A. 1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 John Rodriguez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ann Durham, Director Metro Home Health Care, Inc. 10707 66th Street North Pinellas Park, Florida 33565 R. S. Powers, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent to Impose Fine dated March 3, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("the Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the Respondent and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The Respondent shall remit to the Agency, within ninety (90) days of this Final Order, the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). A check should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care 1 Filed November 9, 2009 11:58 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. Administration." The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS # 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this s3 day o tJ-?t?<: ,2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Care Administrat1 A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Ann Lisenby Parmer Lisenby Home Care, Inc. 412 North Cove Blvd. Panama City, Florida 32401 (U. S. Mail) Shaddrick A. Haston Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #2 Mail Stop Code #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this _6ay of /}6 , 2009. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 Ce1t1f1ecl Article Number SENDERS RECORD CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR March 3, 2009 ANN LISENBY PARMER LISENBY HOME CARE, INC. 412 N COVE BLVD PANAMA CITY, FL 32401 JFlORl AAGENCY F,OR HIcAl.lCH CARE AOMAINISlllATION Better Health Care for all Floridians oqJ521 CASE #: 2009002407 NOTICE OF INTENT TO IMPOSE FINE Pursuant to Section 400.474 (6) (f), Florida Statutes (F.S.), a fine of $5,000 is hereby imposed for failure to submit the home health agency quarterly report within 15 days after the quarter ending September 30. As required in section 400.474(6) (f), F.S., the agency shall impose a fine of$ 5,000. TO PAY NOW, PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN 21 DAYS AND MAil.ED WITH A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF INTENT TO: Agency for Health Care Administration Finance and Accounting, Revenue Section OMCManager 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Include License Number: 20651096 and Case Number: 2009002407 in check memo field. EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION OF RIGHTS FORM. Agency for Health Care Administration By: Anne Menard, Manager Home Care Unit cc: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 2727 Mahan Drive,MS#34 Tallahassee. Florida 32308 Visit AHCA online at http://ahca.myfl · • I EXHIBIT I No Theme Page 1 ofl HOME HEALTH AGENCY QUARTERLY REPORT For the Quarter July 1 to September 30, 2008 Send an e-mail with this information to home.ti_ alth@ahca.myflorida.com by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 to avoid a $5,000 fme. NAME OF HOME HEALTH AGENCY Lisenby home Care, Inc LICENSE# 20651096 STREET ADDRESS & CITY: 412 N. Cove Blvd, Panama City, Fl 32401 On September 30, 2008, there were _3_ insulin-dependent diabetic patients receiving insulin injection services from my home health agency. On September 30, 2008 there were _36_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency AND licensed hospice services. On September 30, 2008, there were a total of_77_ patients receiving home health services from my home health agency. The following professional nurses (RNs or LPNs), whose primary job responsibility is to provide home health services to patients, received remuneration from my home health agency in excess of $25,000 between July 1, 2008 and September 30, 2008. NONE Name Florida License Number Insert additional names and license numbers if necessary. http://webmail.att.net/wm/en-US/toolbar/advnotheme.html 10/2/2008 psPS - Track & Confirm Page 1 of 1 • !:fQ!DtltltlJllSlgn.J.n Track & Confirm Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 7160 3901984813801355 Status: Delivered Your item was delivered at 9:48 AM on March 19, 2009 in PANAMA CITY, FL 32401. Track &Confirm Enter Label/Receipt Number. N..-o---t-i--f-i-·c-··d·-·o·-·n- - -Q. rn·t·i01J$------- ---- Track & Confirm by email Get current event information or updates for your item sent to you or others by email. (Bo>) Return Receipt (Electronic) Verify who signed for your item by email. ( tJo>) Copyright© 1999-2007 USPS. All Rights Reserved. No FEAR Act EEO Data FOIA '\:,_· J-i t;.-,pe ; :;•,· • l.\!!.'-'l·/•. ;- t' ip!;,,; http://trkcnfrm1.smi.usps.com/PTSinternetWeb/InterLabellnquiry.do 03/24/2009 STATE OF FLORIDA
The Issue Whether applications for Certificates of Need filed by Medshares of Florida, Inc., and National Healthcare, L.P., for Medicare Certified Home Health Agencies in Health Planning District 8 for the July 1997 Planning Horizon, should be granted or denied by the Agency for Health Care Administration.
Findings Of Fact The District District 8 is composed of Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Rule 59C-1.031(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. If granted, the requested certificates of need will enable Medshares and NHC to provide Medicare-certified home health services throughout the entire district. The parties disagreed as to the number of District 8 home health companies with Medicare-certified home health agency CONs. For purposes of the 1997 planning horizon, the district has thirty-five home health care companies (reporting and non- reporting) with certificates of need for Medicare-certified home health agencies. The Parties Medshares of Florida, Inc., (Medshares) was formed "pretty much immediately prior to the application [in this case]." AHCA No. 10, p.15. Although it recently received a CON to establish a Medicare-certified home health agency in District 9, there has not been enough time for Medshares to build a record in Florida. But Medshares is a member of a family of companies (the "Medshares Family") founded in Tennessee in 1985. The Medshares family has now expanded into 12 states. Through 2000 employees, it provides various home health services, including Medicare-certified home health services, private nursing services, management services for home health agencies, infusion services, and consulting services. In 1996, the Medshares Family provided approximately one million visits through its Medicare-certified home health agencies and approximately 1.7 million visits through its non- Medicare-certified and managed home health agencies. Recent growth in Medshares Family business is attributable to increased admissions, not to increased home health visits. It is Medshares Family policy for each of its home health agencies which have operated for three years to seek accreditation from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). This policy, of course, is applicable to a Medshares District 8 agency should the Medshares application in this case be granted. In the nursing home business for over 26 years, National HealthCare, L.P., (NHC) is a national nursing home company and a southeastern regional home health care company. It has thirty- three home care offices in three states and did in excess of 750,000 home health visits in 1996. It owns or manages one hundred and five nursing homes throughout the United States. It owns eight nursing homes in Florida of which five have a superior rating. NHC manages thirty-two other centers in Florida. NHC currently has three nursing home facilities which it owns or manages in District 8. The facilities, in Collier, Sarasota, and Charlotte Counties, have a total of 420 beds. Because of this ownership of existing facilities in the district, NHC has developed significant community linkages, training programs, and community involvement in the district. Obtaining a certificate of need for a Medicare-certified home health agency in District 8 will enhance NHC's continuum of care in District 8. NHC has a well-developed corporate and regional management structure dedicated to providing high quality care to its patients. The management structure places a significant amount of decision making at the home health agency level. The corporate and regional structure's purpose is to support the local delivery of health care services. The Agency for Health Care Administration is designated by statute as the "single state agency to issue, revoke, or deny certificates of need . . . in accordance with the district plans, the statewide health plan and . . . federal and state statutes." Section 408.034(1), Florida Statutes. Need Projections Paragraph (a) of Section 408.035 AHCA's rule setting a home health agency need methodology was invalidated several years ago. See Principal Nursing v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 16 FALR 10465, reversed in part, 650 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). AHCA did not publish a fixed need pool for Medicare-certified home health agencies for the July 1997 planning horizon applicable to these applicants. AHCA did not propose any methodology in its initial, free-form review or testimony of the applications. Instead, AHCA left it to the applicants to develop and present need methodologies in support of their applications. Medshares' Need Methodologies and AHCA Criticism The Medshares application presented various need methodologies and estimates of need for additional Medicare- certified home health visits in District 8. The primary Medshares methodology is a clinical need model based upon data obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics. The model develops home health use rates by sex for four age groups, 0-64, 65-74, 75-84, and 85+, and by geographic region. Patient volume and visits projections are made by developing individual use rates for each diagnostic category collected in the data survey. Each use rate is the result of dividing the total number of visit characteristics for the specific age and sex combination by the matching age and sex population estimates. To project need for 1997, the developed use rates are applied to the projected 1997 District 8 population by diagnostic category. For the 1997 planning horizon for District 8, Medshares' clinical need model estimates total visits of 3,488,290, which is an increase of approximately 1.6 million visits over 1994 (the latest year for which data was available at the time of the application). The Agency criticized Medshares' clinical need model because it included population aged 64 and under. The criticism fails on two counts. First, Medicare-certified home health agencies are expected to provide home health services to persons under age 65. Second, inclusion of the population and use rates for those under age 65 does not have any significant impact on Medshares needs projections since only 3 per cent of the originally projected visits are attributable to population under 65. AHCA's major criticism of Medshares clinical need model is that it considers the model's total visits projection of 3.4 million in 1997 to be an unreasonable increase over the actual visits in 1996 shown in AHCA publications. (These publications were not available at the time of the filing of the applications and so were not used by Medshares.) AHCA's published actual visits for 1996 of 2.4 million, however, are, without doubt, not accurate. The figure assumes that 9 agencies which did not report in 1996 conducted the same number of visits in 1996 as they reported in 1995, that is, 900,000. Whether this assumption is to high or too low, there is little question that it is not correct. If, for example, an agency not reporting in 1996 did not do so because it did not conduct any visits (not an unreasonable assumption since the agencies are obligated by law to report) then the 1995 reported visits are much too high for that agency as a figure for 1996 visits. On the other hand, if the non-reporting agency simply failed to report in 1996, the number of 1995 visits is likely lower than the actual number of visits in 1996. Home health care visits have been on the increase in District 8, a trend mirroring the state-wide trend. Utilization of home health care agencies is increasing because of growth in elderly population and an increase in the number of visits per patient. Furthermore, the amount of time spent by patients in hospitals has been decreasing. The decrease translates into an increased need by the patients for home health care visits. The need for home health care will continue to increase because it is a cost-effective alternative to nursing home placement and hospital care. In sum, AHCA's criticism of the Medshares clinical need methodology is based on inaccurate assumptions. Perhaps AHCA is correct that Medshares' projected visits for 1997 is unreasonably high. But the projection squares with the direction that home health visits are going, both because of increase in population and increase in use rate as well as decrease in hospital's lengths of stay. In addition to the clinical need model, Medshares projected need by two other methodologies. Through the first of these two, the clinical need model was tested by comparing its results to projections based upon the average Medicare-certified home health use rate growth from 1991 to 1995. This methodology yielded an estimate of 3.6 million for the 65 and over population of District, thus supporting the need projected by the clinical need model. In the second of the two additional methodologies, Medshares estimated the number of home health visits based upon the number of hospital discharges of patients within a certain Major Diagnostic Category (MDC). This methodology yielded an estimated need for 2,704,910 visits in 1997. All three of Medshares' methodologies provided an estimate of need for at least two additional Medicare-certified home health agencies in District 8 in 1997. NHC's Need Methodologies One of NHC's methodologies computes the increase in the home health use rate from 1993 to 1994 and applies a reduced increase in use rates to the projected population for each year to the horizon year of 1997. The methodology yields projected visits of 2,403,630 visits in 1997, for an increase from 1994 of 550,950 visits. In contrast to AHCA's determination that the Medshares' methodologies were unreasonable, AHCA agreed that NHC's methodology was reasonable. AHCA found fault with the NHC opinion of need, however, because of the data NHC used in its calculation of need. The AHCA document relied on by NHC for its base year (1993) visits of 1,656,112 was later revised by AHCA to reflect 1,702,106 visits in 1993. As a result, AHCA contends, the initial use rate increase used by NHC (7.6 per cent from 1993 to 1994) is higher than the actual use rate increase (4.8 per cent), which means that NHC's projections are overstated. Other criticisms were leveled by AHCA at NHC methodologies used in the application. The Agency's criticisms do not hold sway. Overlooking for the moment that any error was caused by faulty data provided NHC by the Agency, given the undisputed increase in the use rate, the NHC forecast for 1997 visits compared to actual 1996 visits shows the 1997 forecast to be conservative. After taking all of the Agency's criticisms into account, there was competent substantial evidence to establish a need for five more home health agencies in the district. The inadequacy of the criticisms was underscored when NHC's health planning expert used a "median agency size" in his calculations, an approach now favored by AHCA as it attempts to develop a new rule methodology for ascertaining Medicare-certified home health agency numeric need. Employing such a method still yielded a need for at least two more Medicare-certified home health agencies in the district. State Health Plan Preferences The Florida State Health Plan establishes six preferences for applicants of certificates of need for Medicare- certified home health agencies. The State Health Plan provided for preference to an applicant proposing to serve AIDS patients, (Preference 1). Both Medshares and NHC meet Preference 1. Medshares will provide services to AIDS and HIV-positive patients. The Medshares family has a history of providing services needed by these patients and Medshares proposes to condition its certificate on provision of services to AIDS patients. NHC is actively involved and has seen patients for Bay Aids Services Information Coalition, Tallahassee AIDS Support Services and Big Bend - Comprehensive AIDS Residential Education Services. NHC provided extensive documentation in its application to demonstrate current provision of significant levels of AIDS care. It has the organizational capability to continue to do so. Preference is given by the State Health Plan to an applicant proposing to provide a full range of services, including high technology services, unless they are sufficiently available and accessible in the same service area, (Preference 2). NHC surveyed existing home health agencies in the district to reveal that 29 agencies do not provide dietary guidance, 28 do not provide homemaker services, 26 do not provide medical supplies, 21 do not provide respiratory services, six do not provide speech therapy and five do not provide social services. NHC will provide all of these. NHC meets Preference 2. Medshares provides a full range of skilled nursing, homemaker, and therapy services including cardiac care, continuous IV therapy, diabetes care, oncology services, pediatrics, rehabilitation services, pain therapy, total parenteral nutrition, speech, physical and occupational therapies, respiratory therapies, audiology therapy, and infusion therapy. Medshares meets Preference 2. The State Health Plan provides a preference to applicants with a history of serving a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent patients in comparison with other providers within the same AHCA service district and proposing to serve such patients within its market area (Preference 3). There is no definition of "disproportionate share" and no data available to determine the level of Medicaid and indigent care provided by home health providers in District 8. Nonetheless, it is fair to find that NHC meets this preference and Medshares, based on the experience of the Medshares family, meets the spirit of this preference. In addition, both have committed to continue to provide Medicaid and indigent care; in the case of NHC, 2 per cent of patient visits to Medicaid patients and 1.5 per cent of its visits to the indigent, in the case of Medshares, its application is conditioned on 1 per cent of its patients being Medicaid and another 1 per cent being indigent. The State Health Plan provides a preference to an applicant proposing to serve counties under served by existing home health agencies (Preference 4). No demonstration was made that any of the counties in District 8 were underserved by existing home health agencies. The fifth State Health Plan preference is for applicants which commit to provide the department with consumer survey data measuring consumer satisfaction. Both Medshares and NHC meet this preference. The final preference in the State Health Plan is for an applicant proposing a comprehensive quality assurance program and proposing to be accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations. Both Medshares and NHC meet this preference with NHC conditioning its application on implementation of a quality assurance program and successfully obtaining JCAHO accreditation. The District 8 Health Plan The District 8 Health Plan contains two allocation preferences for applicants for Medicare-certified home health agencies. The first is for the applicant able to demonstrate community contacts and relationships with hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, psychiatric, substance abuse, mental health, and other outpatient facilities within the proposed service area. The second is for the applicant showing a commitment to, or a historical record of, service to the medically indigent or other healthcare underserved population groups. NHC has developed significant community linkages through its existing nursing home beds in the health planning district with the types of health care providers listed in the preference. Further, NHC has agreed to condition its CON on the satisfaction of this preference. Medshares does not have operations in the district currently. But its application contained evidence of contact with local District 8 health care providers. As discussed earlier, both NHC and Medshares meet the second preference of the local health care plan. Availability and Access Paragraph 408.035(1)(b) Access issues become much less important for applicants who have demonstrated a numeric need for their proposals. Nonetheless, the addition of both NHC and Medshares Medicare- certified home health agencies will enhance both availability and access to these health services. Competition and Cost Effectiveness Paragraph 408.035(1)(l) Competition among home health providers in District 8 is more restricted than the number of providers would indicate because the District 8 market is dominated by a few large providers. Four companies provide 75 per cent of home health visits. Seventeen of the agencies are hospital-based and 10 of these are owned by one hospital. Competition will be enhanced by approval of the Medshares and NHC proposals. Both Medshares and NHC have the ability to compete effectively with the large providers in District 8. Cost effectiveness should be enhanced as well. District 8 has the highest average cost per home health visit in Florida. The 1994 average was $71.48. Generally, hospital-based home health agencies have higher costs. Hence, it is not surprising that District 8, with its many hospital-based agencies, has the highest average cost per home health visit. The cost per visit projected by Medshares in its second year is $65.21. Approval of the Medshares and NHC applications should help to lower the district-wide average cost per visit. Past and Proposed Provision of Services to Medicaid Patients and the Medically Indigent Paragraph 408.035(1)(n) As discussed above, both Medshares and NHC meet this statutory criterion. Multi-level Health Care System Paragraph 408.035(1)(o) Home health services play a key role in the continuum of care in a multi-level health care system by providing a less restrictive and less costly setting for discharges of patients from hospitals and nursing homes to their homes or assisted living facilities. Medshares participates in programs which promote a continuum of care, including a pre-heart transplant and post-heart transplant program, a "Healthy Homecomings" program for high risk pregnancies and a program which enables physically challenged persons to remain employed. NHC proposes to provide home health care in a continuum of care in conjunction with NHC's own nursing home and assisted living facilities located throughout District 8. An award to NHC would expand the continuum of care already provided by NHC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter its final order granting the applications of Medshares of Florida, Inc., and National HealthCare L.P. for CON Nos. 8412 and 8413, respectively. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building III Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Post Office Box 623 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0623 Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Frank P. Rainer, Esquire Sternstein, Rainer & Clarke, P.A. 314 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Respondent proved the allegations contained in its January 30, 2004, notice of revocation of family day care home registration letter to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Petitioner, by and through aid, assistance, and training of the federally funded Weed and Seed Support Group program of the Fort Myers area, began her family day care home provider training in 2001 and, upon completion of training, was registered as a family day care home from July 25, 2002, to June 30, 2003. On June 23, 2003, Respondent acted upon Petitioner's re-registration application to provide child care in her home for up to ten children, effective June 30, 2003, through June 30, 2004. Respondent acknowledged that at the time Petitioner's registration was acted upon, Leona Mark, Petitioner's identified substitute caregiver, had cleared her for background screening but she had not completed either the minimum or 30 hours of family day care home training prior to caring for children in a family day care home. Notwithstanding the situation with Ms. Marks, Respondent's recommendation was to "Issue registration to Deborah Scurry to provide child care in her home for up to 10 children." Ms. Mark did not testify, and the record contains no evidence that Ms. Mark completed her training at any time prior to Respondent's notice of revocation letter of January 30, 2004. Respondent, by letter dated January 30, 2004, informed Petitioner that her family day care home registration was revoked. The revocation letter gave the following basis for revocation: On December 22, 2003, the licensing unit received a complaint that a nine month old sustained a skull facture while in your care. The complaint also stated that you left your daycare children with your 15 year old daughter. During the investigation, you denied ever leaving the daycare children alone and that you always took them with you. The Department, upon conducting interviews, has determined that you did leave the children with your 15-year-old daughter, which is a supervision violation. The letter cited Subsections 402.302(1) and (7) and 402.313(1)(a)4., Florida Statutes (2003), as the provisions determined to have been violated and the authority for revocation of the registration. The Injured Child D.B. is Petitioner's nephew, and he was routinely placed in her family day care home when his mother was working. On Friday morning at approximately 6:30 a.m., on December 12, 2003, L.B., D.B.'s mother, left D.B., a nine-month-old child, in Petitioner's family day care home. At that time, neither L.B. nor Petitioner noticed a bump on D.B.'s head. According to Petitioner, D.B. became "fussy" during morning breakfast at approximately 7:00 a.m., at which time she noticed a small bump on his head. The bump was soft to her touch, and she thought no more about it. During lunch, Petitioner's daughter noticed that the bump had gotten larger and told her mother, who, by telephone, attempted to reach L.B., but was unsuccessful. When L.B. came to pick D.B. up at approximately 6:30 or 7:00 p.m., on December 12, 2003, Petitioner and L.B. discussed the bump on D.B.'s head. L.B. recalled that while playing D.B.'s sibling had hit him on the head with a plastic toy bat at some earlier time and that D.B. had fallen out of bed and hit his head on the floor. L.B. testified that she does not know where D.B. hit his head. It could have happened at home while playing with siblings, when he fell out of bed, or when he was with his father. She was firm in her conviction and belief that D.B. was not injured while in Petitioner's family day care home. There is no evidence of record to account for D.B.'s whereabouts on Saturday and Sunday, December 13 and 14, 2003. On Monday, December 15, 2003, L.B. dropped D.B. off at Petitioner's family day care home. On Tuesday, December 16, 2003, D.B. was again dropped off at Petitioner's family day care home. On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, Petitioner noticed that the bump had gotten larger and called L.B. L.B. came later in the day and carried D.B. to the Emergency Room at Cape Coral Hospital for a medical examination. Medical Examination of the Injured Child A Medical Examination report, dated December 19, 2003, was completed by Susan Sherman (Nurse Sherman), ARNP of the Child Protection Team. The Medical Examination report provides Dr. Michael Weiss' findings, which are as follows: X-RAY FINDINGS: A copy of the report for CT of the head without contrast and a complete skeletal survey are available. These x-rays were read by Dr. Michael Weiss on December 19, 2003. On the CAT scan of the head without contrast, the findings are as follows, "The ventricles are normal in size and midline in position. There is no intracranial hemorrhage. No intra or extra- axial fluid collection. There is a stellate fracture of the left parietal bone. There is also a high right parietal fracture identified. There is no evidence of depression on either side. There is an associated soft tissue hematoma." The impression of the CT scan is as follows: "Biparietal skull fractures, rule out child abuse." Findings and recommendations were reviewed with Dr. Burgett at the time of study. (Dr. Burgett is a pediatrician at the Physician's Primary Care.) . . . (emphasis added) Notwithstanding the findings of Dr. Weiss, Nurse Sherman reported her impression and plan as follows: IMPRESSION: Biparietal skull fractures. From the x-ray report, the skull fracture on the left side of his head is a stellate fracture. There is also a fracture of the parietal bone on the right side of the head. These injuries are consistent with physical abuse. PLAN: The child will be followed medically by his primary care provider. At this time, I do not recommend the child be sheltered. My only recommendation is the child not return to the day care setting. This mother needs to find alternative childcare for [D.B.]. It was reasonable for Nurse Sherman to take the protective approach and recommend that D.B. not return to the family day care home because she believed Petitioner had a history of utilizing substitute caregivers who had not completed required training, and, she also believed that on more than one occasion in the past, Petitioner's child-to-child caregiver ratio was exceeded. An acceptable ratio requires a specific number of caregivers per the number of children within a specific age range. Petitioner had more children than she had certified caregivers required for the separate age range(s) of children found in her family day care home. However, the Department did not charge "past violations of overcapacity" and/or "utilizing substitute caregivers who were not properly qualified" in the January 30, 2004, revocation letter. The evidence of record was inconclusive to demonstrate to any reasonable degree of certainty: first, the date D.B. sustained his injury/injuries; second, whether D.B. was injured while in the care of Petitioner; third, whether D.B. was injured while in the care of his mother; or forth, whether D.B. was injured while in the care of his father. On December 22, 2003, Respondent received a compliant report of a license violation, to wit: over-capacity and background screening. The complaint report was assigned to and investigated by Celeste Davis and a second unnamed person. Ms. Davis closed her report on December 23, 2003. Ms. Davis' investigation found eight children in care: one infant, three preschoolers, and four school-age children. Petitioner was within her ratio at the time of this inspection. Through interviews with the children at the day care, Ms. Davis determined that Petitioner, on occasion, left her day care children alone with L.S., her teenaged daughter, who was not a qualified caregiver. Regarding D.B.'s head injury, Petitioner informed Ms. Davis that the injury did not occur when D.B. was in her care and probably occurred the night before D.B. was brought to her home. Ms. Davis cited Petitioner for one license violation, leaving her day care children alone with her teenage daughter. Ted Leighton investigated an Abuse Hotline Report filed on December 19, 2003. Mr. Leighton did not testify but his written report was introduced into evidence without objection. Respondent argued in its post-hearing submittal that information Mr. Leighton received from his interviews with four minor children, his review of reports from medical personnel and health care providers, and his conclusion that "it was 'probably' on December 15 or 16, 2003, D.B. was injured at the family day care home accidentally by another child when the Petitioner was not present," as fact. Respondent's argument is not based on facts, but upon uncorroborated hearsay, assumptions and conjectures of Mr. Leighton. For those reasons Respondent's argument is rejected. In support of Mr. Leighton's conclusions, Respondent cited the testimony of Nurse Sherman. Nurse Sherman concluded that D.B.'s injuries were "very serious and 'could have' been life threatening, 'could have' happened accidentally 'if' another child jumped off a bed, landing on D.B., while D.B. was laying on the floor with a hard object under his head." The intended purpose of Nurse Sherman's testimony was twofold: to demonstrate the severity of D.B.'s injury and the location D.B.'s injury was sustained. The inference drawn by Respondent was that a lack of supervision was the primary cause of the injury. This argument is likewise not based upon facts found in the evidence of record. Nurse Sherman's conclusions are but an extension of Mr. Leighton's assumptions and conjectures. This argument is likewise rejected. D.B.'s mother recalled one occasion when D.B. had fallen out of her bed at home. She testified that her older daughter told her that while playing with D.B., he had fallen from his bed to the floor on more than one occasion at home. She speculated that D.B. could have been injured at home or by her three-year-old son, who when playing with D.B. had struck him on his head with a plastic toy bat. L.B. testified further that she and Petitioner are related and that her three children have been continuously in Petitioner's family day care home since Petitioner has been qualified as a provider. She was certain that Petitioner did not and would not injure her children. She testified that D.B. "could have" suffered the injury to his head when he was in the care and custody of his father over the weekend. Of the several possibilities of the date, time, place, and in whose custody D.B. may have been when the injury occurred, the mother was not certain. The inconclusive and conflicting evidence regarding D.B.'s whereabouts and the identification of the person or persons who had custody of D.B. when his injury occurred is, as it must be, resolved in favor of Petitioner. Respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that D.B. was injured when in the care, custody, and control of Petitioner while in the family day care home as alleged in its notice of registration revocation dated January 30, 2004. Caregivers supervision and Over capacity Respondent demonstrated that as of June 13, 2002, neither Petitioner's 15-year-old daughter nor any other person present on the days of inspection who was serving as a caregiver was properly trained. By evidence of record, Respondent demonstrated that Petitioner was over capacity, based on the child-to-child caregiver ratio on or about June 2, 2001. With knowledge of the one occasion of over capacity by Petitioner, Respondent approved Petitioner's re-registration application on June 23, 2002, effective through June 30, 2003, and permitted Petitioner to provide care for up to ten children. The approved re-registration increased Petitioner's child care capacity. Respondent's January 30, 2004, letter did not allege an over capacity violation, and no other pleading filed by Respondent contained information from which Petitioner could have been so informed of the over capacity allegation. Respondent failed to prove that D.B. sustained his head injuries while in Petitioner's family day care home. Respondent has shown that Petitioner did on one occasion leave children in the care of a person or persons, including Petitioner's 15-year-old daughter, who were not trained, certified, or qualified as substitute caregiver(s). There is no evidence of record that Petitioner's violation of child-to-child caregiver ratio demonstrated either gross misconduct and/or willful violation of the minimum child care standards within the meaning of the statutes and rules charged. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner did not fully understand the child-to-child caregiver ratio differentiations by age groups. Petitioner's lack of understanding does not absolve her of the obligation to know all rules and regulations. It does, however, provide a reasonable inference that the out-of-ratio situation was not an intentional act on behalf of Petitioner. Weed and Seed Support Group in the Fort Myers Area Petitioner presented the testimony of Susan B. Davis, a family child care specialist employed by the Weed and Seed Support Group of the Fort Myers area. The purpose and organizational goal of this federally funded agency is identification of economically disadvantaged persons who are interested in becoming day care providers in their homes in their respective communities. The methodology of the agency is to first assist those persons identified with acquiring required training and certification. Second, the agency assists the trained candidate(s) with the application process through Respondent. According to Ms. Davis, the federal grant overall objective is twofold: first, to seek, find, and train family day care home providers in the community and second, to provide a source of employment and income to the provider's family. As a direct result of this community service, other families within the economically disadvantaged community will have local and affordable family child care service within their respective communities. By accomplishing the identification and training of community child care providers, employed and unemployed parents in need of day care in the various Fort Myers communities will be the beneficiaries of the available family day care home, thereby enabling some parents to become employed and enhancing employment opportunities for employed parents. The Weed and Seed Support Group of the Fort Myers area offers free help and support to self-employed child care providers. In 2001, Ms. Davis identified and assisted Petitioner in becoming a qualified child care provider. Ms. Davis assisted Petitioner in acquiring her 30 hours of training to become a qualified child care provider. She introduced Petitioner and others to the rules and regulations of Respondent pertaining to child care providers. Thereafter, she would visit with Petitioner and others to whom she rendered assistance only as her time and scheduling permitted. Ms. Davis' last visit with Petitioner occurred sometime before Christmas of 2003. Though she had no knowledge of the injury suffered by D.B., she offered to render assistance and additional training, including assisting Petitioner in acquiring a functional understanding of Respondent's rules, regulations, proper maintenance of required records, and correct completion of required reports and forms, that would enable Petitioner to continue her self-employment status as a qualified child care provider offering daily child care services within her community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order: Finding that Petitioner left children at her family day care home during her absence from the premises under the supervision, care, and control of unqualified substitute caregivers; and Imposing on Petitioner a fine in the amount of $250.00; and, upon payment thereof, Set aside and vacate revocation of Petitioner's family day care home license/registration; and Issue to Petitioner a six-month provisional license. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner J & J seeks a Certificate of Need to establish a new home health agency in the Tampa Bay area to serve the residents of Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco, and Manatee Counties for an estimated project cost of $85,000. All necessary funding for the project is to be supplied by petitioner's parent, Johnson and Johnson. It is the expressed intent of J & J to provide only specialized patient services in the home to those patients who are acutely ill and in need of intensive or intermediate level clinical services in lieu of hospitalization. J & J intends to serve early hospital discharge patients who require more than single follow-up or maintenance care after discharge. It does not seek to provide maintenance-level care to patients, and would refer such patients to another home health agency. J & J does not intend to become a part of hospital rotation lists utilized to refer the less acutely ill homebound patient to a home health agency. J & J proposes to hire full-time clinical specialty certified registered nurses to provide services to ten general categories of patients. The specific diagnoses or treatment modalities which J & J expects to provide include cerebrovascular accident (CVA or stroke) with and without paralysis, oncology and chemotherapy, hyperalimentation, enteral therapy, respiratory therapy, intravenous antibiotics, other nutritional services and neuro-ortho. These proposed services are intended to be a replacement for more expensive in- hospital health care. J & J intends to accept only those patients within the above classifications who are sick enough to require home health care in lieu of hospitalization, and not those who can be treated strictly on an outpatient basis. The key factor for acceptance of a patient by J & J is not the diagnosis of the patient, but is the patient's acuity level. J & J has an ongoing research program to develop additional clinical specialty home health services based upon physician input, technical developments end patient needs. One of its reasons for establishing a home health agency in the Tampa Bay area is because J & J's national corporate headquarters are to be located in Tampa and this proximity would facilitate its research and development efforts. J & J has staffed its existing home health agencies in Texas and California, and proposes to staff its Tampa agency, with full-time nurses with acute care experience. Orientation continuing education programs for nurses are planned. The nurses are to be either certified as clinical specialists or develop their clinical expertise through J & J's own internal privileging program. The proposed new agency, as do the existing Texas and California agencies, will have its own pharmacist, therapists, dieticians, social workers and certified home health aides. It will also operate its own pharmacy and will provide and deliver durable medical equipment and supplies. Nurses will be on duty and/or on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As noted above,' J & J seeks to serve those patients who require special expertise in their care. Planning for discharge will begin during the patient's hospitalization and there will be a patient screening process before a patient is accepted. An assessment of the patient's home and family life will be made to determine that conditions are suitable for treatment and recovery at home. A registered nurse is to be assigned as the "primary nurse" to coordinate the patient's plan of care with the clinical specialist, therapists and physician. The patient's physician is to be given a weekly report of the patient's progress. An elaborate charting and recordkeeping system is anticipated and is provided at J & J's existing home health agencies. A prospective, con current and retrospective quality assurance program is to be instituted which involves a quarterly internal review and a utilization review by physicians. Based upon statistics which illustrate that 26,800 patients for every one million population group are discharged annually in the ten classifications which J & J seeks to serve, J & J predicts it can treat 1,430 patients per year in the four- county area. These figures are based on nationwide statistics and are not site-specific to the four-county area. J & J presently owns and operates three existing agencies in Texas and California. Certificates of need for home health agencies are not required in those states. The Dallas/Ft. Worth center opened on April 4, 1983, and had, as of the time of the hearing in this matter, a daily patient census of 70. The Houston center opened on April 11, 1983, and had a daily patient census of 60. The daily patient census at the Los Angeles center, which opened on July 6, 1983, was 60. These existing agencies also accept only specialty care patients who can receive services in lieu of hospitalization. The Texas centers have rejected as many as 47 percent of their referrals because the patients either did not meet the medical criteria for the J & J system, because of their home situation or, in some instances, because of financial reasons. In California, the charge for a visit by a registered nurse is $75.00, while the charge for a therapist visit is $65.00. The charges in both Texas centers are, and the proposed Florida center will be, $65.00 for a registered nurse's visit and $55.00 for a therapist's visit. All these charges are higher than the current cap or limit for Medicare reimbursement. The Petitioner's projected cost for an R.N. visit is $52.40. This cost is higher than the current Medicare cost cap for skilled nursing services. After the Florida four-county agency becomes fully operational, J & J projects that only 23 percent of the patients it serves will be Medicare patients. It is anticipated that the remaining patients will be primarily private pay, privately insured or self-insured patients who will be attracted to the J & J program because of its cost-savings potential. The existing operations in Texas and California serve 60 to 70 percent Medicare patients. These percentages are expected to decline due to J & J's efforts to educate and convince private reimbursers to use J & J's services in lieu of hospitalization. A large public relations firm has been retained by J & J to communicate with insurers end the medical community regarding the benefits of clinical, specialized home health care, especially as a replacement for hospital care. The patient mix of most of the existing licensed home health agencies in the four-county area is in excess of 95 percent Medicare. A license and certificate of need are only required under Florida law for home health agencies which serve Medicare patients. At least some of the existing agencies have accordingly severed their operations into those which serve and those which do not serve the Medicare patient. J & J does not believe it would be feasible to open its four-county agency as an unlicensed and uncertificated agency to serve only private pay patients because it believes that licensure will be helpful in convincing private insurers to use its agency. Also, a patient may begin his treatment as a non-Medicare patient, but bay later qualify for such benefits, and J & J desires to provide a continuity of treatment. Although J & J's proposed charges and costs are higher then the Medicare reimbursement system currently allows, J & J will attempt to obtain a waiver of the Medicare cap by demonstrating the highly specialized nature of the services it provides and by illustrating that J & J's home health care is in lieu of more expensive hospital care. Although J & J does not plan to serve all patients regardless of their ability to pay, it has and will continue to provide care to indigent and medically indigent patients. Approximately 20 such patients have been served in the existing agencies in Texas and California. There are approximately thirteen licensed home health agencies in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco end Manatee Counties. Eleven of these agencies are members of FAHHA, a voluntary association whose membership is comprised of home health agencies licensed by the State of Florida. Though some of the existing agencies have expanded their operations by the opening of new submits in other areas, there have been no Certificates of Need issued to any new home health agency in the four-county area since 1978. The intervenor Gulf Coast provides home health services in Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, as well as Hernando County, through six different offices. In addition to providing maintenance and homemaker services to its patients, Gulf Coast provides most, if not all, the same specialty services proposed by J & J. Their patients include CVA patients with and without paralysis, oncology patients of which two are receiving I.V. chemotherapy at home and several hyperalimentation patients. Gulf Coast provides enteral and respiratory therapy, as well as I.V. antibiotic services. Its staff, which includes approximately 90 professionals, 140 ancillary staff and 50 contract personnel, includes socialists in the areas of pulmonary nursing, enterostomal therapy, oncology and psychiatric nursing. Gulf Coast has recently started an I.V. certification program for its nurses. Approximately one-third of the nurses have bad a year or more of prior experience in critical care units. A registered nurse is on-call 24 hours a day. Quality control assurances include monthly utilization review, both in-house and by a physician. Gulf Coast makes arrangements with local vendors and suppliers for all durable medical equipment and pharmaceutical supplies needed by its patients. It has experienced an annual growth in its average daily census of between 15 and 20 percent, and its administrators feel that it has the capacity to expand its services, even with its present staff, in the event of greater demand for the more specialty-type services proposed by J & J. Gulf Coast's current Medicare cost cap for registered nursing services is approximately $48 to $50 per visit. Its actual costs for such services, for which it is reimbursed, are approximately $37 or $38 per visit. The Intervenor Manasota is one of six licensed home health agencies in Manatee County. All its patients are Medicare patients, and some 70 percent of its referrals are hospital referrals from the two existing hospitals in Manatee County-- Manatee Memorial Hospital and Blake Hospital. In addition to maintenance level and homemaker services, Manasota has provided more specialized services to patients including nasogastric, gastrostomy, stomal, enterostomal and I.V. antibiotic therapy. It has the staff and capacity to provide chemotherapy and hyperalimentation, but has not bed any physician request for those services for their patients. Manasota has experienced a significant decline in the number of new patients it has admitted end in its average daily census. This appears to be related to the reduction in the number of discharges from Manatee Memorial Hospital and the fact that Blake Hospital owns its own home health agency. The decrease in patient census et Manasota has resulted in an increase in its cost per visit from $32.50 to $41.00 per visit. The Medicare cost cap for Manasota is approximately $44.30. Manasota has the capacity to expand to serve an increased number of Medicare patients. Blake Home Health is affiliated with Blake Hospital in Manatee County, and receives 75 percent of its referrals therefrom. It is the policy of Blake Hospital to refer all discharged hospital patients who require home health care to Blake Home Health unless the attending physician has specifically designated a different agency. Blake is available to serve its patients 24 hours a day end has access to the hospital pharmacy. It presently renders services in the areas of enteral, stomal end parenteral therapy and handles cerebrovescular cases. While nurses are available to Blake Home Health to perform I.V. antibiotic therapy and chemotherapy, Blake has never been requested to perform such services. Independent Home Health is an existing licensed home health agency located in Clearwater, and was recently purchased by Morton Plant Hospital. Independent presently provides and has performed all the specialized, home health services proposed by J & J. It operates 24 hours a day, with a nurse on call after 5:00 p.m. Its quality assurance program involves a monthly nursing audit and quarterly utilization review by a physician. Its charge for nursing services is $40 per visit. Independent has the ability to expand to provide further services. Global Home Health Services, Inc. has five offices in the four-county area, with a total average daily census of approximately 400. Global performs almost all of the specialized services proposed by J & J and has never had a request for services in those categories that it was unable to fulfill. The number of patients receiving home chemotherapy and hyperalimentation is very few, due to lack of demand for such services. It is open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Global charges $47.00 per nursing visit, and makes all arrangements for the ordering and delivery of supplies, durable medical equipment and pharmaceuticals. Global has the ability, even with its present staff to serve 20 or 305 more patients and to expand the range of services it presently provides. The Visiting Nurses Association of Hillsborough County (VNA) is a public non-profit home health agency that serves any patient regardless of age, race or ability to pay. It provides all the services which J & J proposes to offer, although only about 3 percent of its total patients receive these specialized services. The VNA has its own continuing education programs and also conducts training programs for other home health agencies, specifically in the areas of I.V. chemotherapy and I.V. antibiotics. VNA offers 24-hour services, and has the ability and capacity to expand to meet any increased need or demand for home health services. Its cost per nursing visit is about $29, and it charges $35 per visit. Its average patient census 1as increased from 212 in 1980 to 720 in 1983. The existing agencies rely heavily on referrals from hospital rotation lists. None of the existing agencies about which evidence was adduced at the hearing have their own pharmacy or durable medical equipment or supply services. Many agencies, if not most, use some independent contractor, therapists on an as-needed basis. While each of the existing agencies experienced a growth in their average daily census in the Veers between 1980 and 1983, some agencies experienced a slight decrease in the number of patients and visits during the six months immediately prior to the hearing. Increased home health utilization in the future is suggested due to the new Medicare reimbursement system for hospitals. This system is based upon diagnostic-related groups (DRG's) and the amount of reimbursement is based upon the average length of stay for a given diagnosis, regardless of the patient's actual length of stay. The former system reimbursed hospitals for their actual costs of treating a patient. The DRG system will provide hospitals with the financial incentive to discharge patients at the earliest possible point. It can be expected that demand for home health care services for more acutely ill early discharge patients will increase. Officials responsible for discharging patients from Tampa General Hospital and St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa were of the opinion that the existing home health agencies in Hillsborough County were doing a fine job in providing follow-up care of both chronically ill patients end those patients who are acutely ill with a good prognosis. While these persons were in favor of the adequate provision of more advanced and intensive home health care, they believe that their current needs are being met by the existing agencies.
The Issue Pursuant to the Stipulation, the factual issues to be determined are: Whether DHRS' initial agency action in denying CON #4912 to Home Care was substantially justified; Whether special circumstances existed which would make an award of fees and costs unjust. Whether this action was initiated by a state agency within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)3, Florida Statutes. The ultimate issue for determination is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act (FEAJA), for fees and costs incurred in DOAH Case No. 87-2150.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to a Stipulation entered into by the parties, filed on November 10, 1988, the parties have admitted and/or stipulated that: DHRS' initial agency action was to deny CON #4911 to Home Care for the establishment of a Medicare home health agency to serve patients in Walton and Okaloosa Counties, Florida. After preliminarily denying Home Care's CON application, DHRS was required by statute or rule to provide Home Care with a clear point of entry to a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Home Care's Petition for Attorney's Fees was timely filed after Respondent, DHRS, filed a Final Order in this case on July 26, 1988, sustaining Home Care's position that it should be awarded CON #4911. Home Care is a "small business party" within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(d)1.b., Florida Statutes. Home Care is a "prevailing party" within the meaning of section 57.111(3)(c)1., Florida Statutes. Home Care incurred reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in Case No. 87- 2150, at least in the amount of $15,000. The following findings are based upon the record presented: Home Care filed its timely petition in this fee case after Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("DHRS") entered a final Order on July 26, 1988, in Case No. 87-2150 granting Home Care a certificate of need ("CON") to operate a home health agency. DHRS' Final Order was a reversal of its original position on Home Care's application which was initially denied by DHRS. A formal administrative hearing was held before the undersigned on the issue of whether Home Care was entitled to a CON. The pleadings, transcripts, and exhibits in that proceeding, Case No. 87-2150, have been duly considered in regard to whether DHRS' actions were substantially justified in initially denying Home Care's application. The parties have stipulated that those documents shall constitute part of the record in this proceeding. The following findings are based upon the record in Case 87-2150 and the findings made in the Recommended Order entered in that case and adopted by the agency's final order. DHRS is the state agency responsible for administering the State Health Planning Act pursuant to Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes. (a) At the time DHRS denied this application, it did not have any published rule or policy on the methodology for determining need. Its original rule was successfully challenged and in 1984 DHRS attempted to promulgate a new rule. This proposed rule was invalidated in 1985 because it was based upon a use rate methodology and contained arbitrary criteria. Subsequently, DHRS published an interim policy which it used to assess home health care CON applications. The interim policy was applied to the first batch of applications in 1986 and used a rate population methodology which projected the number of Medicare enrollees using home health care services. The projected number of users was multiplied by the average number of visits per medicare home health care user. See Paragraph 15 of Recommended Order, Case No. 88-4763F. This interim policy was defended by DHRS in the First DCA in December 1986. In the summer of 1986, representatives of the Florida Association of Home Heath Agencies complained to the governor's office about the interim policy. After meetings between the staff of DHRS and the Governor's office, the Department abandoned the interim policy. No change occurred in the medical or financial factors which would warrant a change in policy. Additional applications had to be approved by Ms. Hardy's superiors. Home Care filed a Letter of Intent on October 8, 1986, and a CON application for a Medicare-certified home health agency in Okaloosa and Walton Counties on December 15, 1986. This was application CON Action No. 4911. DHRS published its notice of denial of CON Action No. 4911 in a letter to counsel for Home Care dated April 30, 1987. No specifics were given regarding the grounds for denial. Applicants at that time had been asked to give DHRS an unlimited extension of time within which to render a decision on their applications. Those who refused had their applications denied and were required, similar to Home Care, to demonstrate an unmet need based upon the broad statutory criteria found in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. DHRS characterizes the procedure above as a free form action utilizing the statutory criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. DHRS argued in Case No. 87-2150 that its incipient policy looks at the actual need by applying the 13 statutory criteria and bases its conclusion upon information collected from local home health service providers and the local health council. The denial of Home Care's application by DHRS does not state how DHRS applied the statutes to Home Care's application in order that Home Care or others could ascertain a developing standard. DHRS admitted that it did not have any rule upon which to adjudicate the application and DHRS did not present any credible evidence in support of its denial in Case No. 87-2150. DHRS did not adduce evidence supporting its denial because it was DHRS' policy to place the burden of proving both the facts and the methodology on the applicant. The deposition of Joseph Mitchell was introduced and made a part of this record. Mitchell's testimony is clear that, although there is a possibility Home Care could recoup some portion of the costs of litigation in medicare reimbursement as a cost of organizing and establishing the business, it is not certain that Home Care would be compensated because there is a cap on all reimbursable costs above which Medicare will not reimburse a provider and such legal expenses might not be allowed. See Deposition of Mitchell, page 76-78. Intervenors Choctaw Valley Home Health Agency and Northwest Florida Home Health Agency submitted a proposed order in this action seeking a dismissal of Home Care's petition for attorneys' fee and costs as to any relief from the Intervenors.
The Issue Whether the application for certificate of need number 8391, filed by Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., to establish a Medicare certified home health agency in District 4 meets, on balance, the statutory and rule criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact The Agency For Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the state agency authorized to administer the certificate of need (CON) program for health care services and facilities in the state. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. (Shands) is the applicant for CON 8391 to establish a Medicare - certified home health agency in AHCA District 4. AHCA health planning District 4 includes Duval, Nassau, Baker, Clay, St. Johns, Flagler and Volusia Counties. Shands operates a 576-bed statutory teaching hospital for the University of Florida Medical School in Gainesville, four other acute care hospitals, one rehabilitation hospital, a psychiatric facility, and out- patient clinics. Shands Home Care Division has 20 licensed home health care offices in 10 of the 11 AHCA districts in Florida. It is authorized to provide Medicare-certified services in 7 of the districts. In District 4, Shands currently operates a licensed home health agency, or what is called a “private duty” agency (Shands-Jacksonville) which is Medicaid-certified. A CON is a prerequisite to Medicare certification. Shands proposes to condition its CON on the provision of 5 percent Medicaid and 2 percent indigent care. The project costs are estimated to total $24,285, of which $11,000 in capital costs are intended to purchase additional computer equipment. AHCA preliminarily denied Shand’s application because it determined that an additional Medicare certified home health agency is not needed in District 4. At the hearing, AHCA maintained that Shand’s proposal will not increase the accessibility, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, or adequacy of services available to Medicare recipients in District 4. AHCA has also adopted guidelines which require applicants for home health agencies to demonstrate an access problem, a payor group not being served, limited availability, and linkages with health care providers. Shands concedes that it is unable to demonstrate an access problem, that any payor group is denied service, or that home health services are not available, however, Shands has substantial linkages with other health care providers. Home health services are provided by physical, occupational, respiratory, and speech therapists, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, home health aides and homemakers. The cost of a home health visit to the patient’s residence differs greatly depending on whether a highly skilled nurse or therapist, or a less skilled aide or homemaker provides the service. There are thirty-seven licensed and three approved home health agencies in District 4. Unlike health care services delivered in health care facilities, there are no physical capacity limitations on expansion. As demand increases, agencies hire or contract for the services of additional staff. As a practical matter, however, to avoid the time and expense of driving, home health agencies tend to serve patients in relatively close proximity to their offices. The available information shows 11 agencies with offices in Duval, 7 in Volusia, 3 in St. Johns, and 1 each in Clay and Flagler, and none in Nassau County. The offices of Shands-Jacksonville are located in southeast Duval county, near Interstates 295 and 95, on Baymeadows Road. The location is close to Clay and St. Johns Counties. Numeric Need AHCA has no rule methodology to determine the need for Medicare-certified home health agencies. The prior methodology was invalidated in Principal Nursing v. AHCA, DOAH case no. 93-5711RX, reversed in part, 650 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). In an attempt to establish need, Shands presented its own methodology for the July 1997 planning horizon. Shands examined hospital discharges to home health care agencies, from 1994-1995, in District 4. The methodology considers the projected growth in population over 65, actual hospital discharges to home health agencies, and the most cost effective size of home health agencies. Approximately 70 percent of the hospital discharges referred for home health care were patients age 65 or older. In District 4, approximately 15 percent of the population is 65 or over, as compared to 18.7 percent statewide. The population in District 4 and statewide will grow approximately 9 percent from 1996 to 2001. However, the 65 and over population of District 4 is projected to grow by 10.82 percent, as compared to statewide projected growth of 7.36 percent for the 65 and over population. By July 1997, the projected population of District 4 is 1,514,655, of which 234,404 will be over 65. Shands also analyzed the cost effective agency size (CEAS) of home health agencies, finding the home health agencies in a range between 30,000 to 95,000 visits a year are the most cost effective, which is consistent with the average size of 46,496 visits a year for District 4 agencies. Costs for each visit to a patient are greater for smaller home health agencies, until business increases to 25,000 to 30,000 visits. After that, economies of scale allow the additional costs for each additional visit to become negligible. In large part, the costs are higher because smaller agencies have disproportionately more skilled staff, particularly nurses. Within the range of the CEAS, the proportion of visits provided by nurses and home health aids is more balanced. When agencies become very large, over 125,000 visits, each visit begins to add costs, and home health agencies begin to increase the proportion of home health aide visits. Factors which tend to increase use rates for home health agencies include all of those which are resulting in lower lengths of hospital stays, including the use of Diagnostic Related Group (DRG) categories, increased managed care, and other financial disincentives to hospitalization. Advances in medical care also have expanded the types of procedures or treatments administered in the home rather than in a hospital. Medicare-certified home health agency use rates in District 4 have consistently increased from 1.65 in 1989, to 2.18 in 1990, to 2.61 in 1991, to 3.97 in 1992, to 5.46 in 1993, and 7.01 in 1994. Shands used a blended use rate rather than assuming that the historical trend in growth will continue and, from that, projected total visits of 1,969,666 in July 1997, as compared to 1,527,000 actual visits in 1994. When divided by the mean District 4 home health agency size of 46,496 visits, the result is a need for 43 agencies in the district. After subtracting the existing 37 licensed and 3 approved agencies, Shands' expert reasonably found a need, after rounding off 2.53, for up to 3 additional home health agencies in District 4. Of the over 400,000 projected additional visits from 1994 to 1997, Shands reasonably projects 11,000 visits in year one, and 16,000 in year two, when compared to the experiences of existing providers in the District. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - the need for health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan. The 1993 State Health Plan (SHP) includes preferences for home health agency applicants proposing to (1) serve AIDS patients, (2) provide a full range of services, including high technology services, (3) provide a disproportionate share of Medicaid and indigent care, (4) serve underserved counties, (5) use surveys to measure patient satisfaction, and (6) become JCAHO-accredited. The district health plan (DHP) includes preferences for applicants which (1) economically meet acceptable quality standards, (2) will alleviate geographic access problems, (3) will treat HIV infected patients, (4) have adequate health manpower, (5) will serve rural county residents, (6) have letters of support from other health care providers, (7) will serve areas without CON-approved agencies, (8) will locate in counties with averages of less than 4,000 home health visits per 1,000 persons 65 years or older, and (9) commit to having personnel on-call during evenings and weekends. SHP(1) and DHP(3) - AIDS/HIV positive patient care Shands provided 191 discharges for 1,514 inpatient days of care to AIDS/HIV positive patients from October 1994 through September 1995. Shands is affiliated with the Northeast Florida AIDS Network and participates in the Medicaid AIDS waiver, having qualified separately for that program. Extensive out-patient services are provided by Shands to allow AIDS patients to avoid institutionalization. All Shands nurses and home health personnel receive orientation and in-service training in the care of AIDS/HIV positive persons. SHP (2) - a full range of services, including high technology services, is needed Shands offers ventilator, intravenous or infusion, wound care, and high technology drug therapies, as well as pediatric care, which usually involves extremely high technology services. The high technology services are provided by licensed practical nurses or registered nurses, as opposed to home health care aides or homemakers. Shands also operates pharmacies to provide the drugs or equipment needed for high technology services. SHP (5) - surveys for patient satisfaction; and DHP (6) - letters of support from other health care providers and agreements with hospitals, nursing homes and other providers. Because of its existing Medicare - certified home health agencies, Shands already uses and reports to the state the results of its surveys. Shands also has agreements with doctors, hospitals and managed care organizations. Shands' application also includes the required letters of support. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) - availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, and adequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district; SHP (4)- underserved counties, DHP(2) - to alleviate geographic access problems; DHP(5) - serve rural county residents; (7) - areas without other CON - approved agencies; and (8) - counties with less than 4,000 visits per 1,000 persons 65 and over. No geographic access data is available to determine whether or not any problem exists in District 4. There is no evidence that counties in the district are underserved, although portions of Clay and Flagler Counties are rural areas. There is no evidence that any counties in District 4 have had fewer than 4,000 home health visits per 1,000 persons 65 and over. The existing supply of comparable services in District 4 can theoretically and legally expand to provide the projected 1,969,666 visits in 1997. However, competition from new providers encourages quality improvements and maintains cost-efficient agency sizes. Most Medicare-certified agencies in Jacksonville take care of only Medicare patients. Some have related entities to care for private pay or commercial insurance patients. Visiting Nurses Association (VNA) and St. Vincents in Duval County are the Medicare - certified agencies to which Shands refers patients. In 1994, VNA and St. Vincents reported 194,691 and 46,300 total visits, respectively. Subsection 408.035(1)(c) - ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care; and SHP (6) - JCAHO accreditation. Shands Home Care agencies have received JCAHO accreditation, beginning in 1991. Shands successfully operates Medicare - certified home health agencies in AHCA Districts 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Shands-Jacksonville, which started in 1995, is currently being surveyed for JCAHO accreditation. Shands operates other home health agencies which, like Shands-Jacksonville, are not Medicare-certified in AHCA Districts 1 and 11. Shands has an extensive quality assurance and quality improvement plan. Established standards of care apply to guide personnel in the procedures to follow in providing each kind of therapy or service that Shands offers. Subsection 408.035(1)(d) - availability, adequacy alternatives to facilities or services to be provided by the applicant. Home health care is the preferable, lower cost alternative to longer acute care stays or to re-admissions caused by a lack of adequate care following an acute care hospital stay. Existing Medicare-certified home health agencies range from a low of 2,058 visits for Olsten in St. Johns County to a high of over 370,000 visits by Careone in Volusia County. The realistic alternative to Shands’ proposal is for Shands to continue referrals to Medicare- certified home health agencies, one of which exceeded the CEAS by more than 70,000 visits in 1994. Subsections 408.035(1)(e) - probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources; and Subsections 408.035(1)(f) - need in the service district of applicant for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. The parties stipulated that the criteria in Subsections 408.035(1)(e) and (f) are not at issue or not in dispute in this case. Subsection 408.035(1)(g) - need for research and educational facilities including, but not limited to, institutional training programs and community training programs for health care practitioners and for doctors of osteopathy and medicine at the student, internship, and residency training levels. As one of the six state statutory teaching hospitals, Shands meets the need for research, educational and training programs. Subsection 408.035 (1) (h) - availability of resources; including manpower, management, personnel . . . effects on clinical needs of health professional training programs . . .; accessible to schools for health professionals . . . and the extent to which proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the district; DHP 1 - economically provide acceptable quality; DHP (4) - adequate health manpower and (9) - on- call personnel. Shands Home Care has 2700 employees statewide. Shands Hospital and Shands Home Care have extensive recruitment and human resource capabilities. Fringe benefits include choices of several medical plans, dental insurance, legal insurance, and competitive vacation policies. The existing Shands-Jacksonville operates from a 1500 square foot office, with a staff of 15 employees. Up to 185 contingent staff people are available to Shands - Jacksonville. The number of hours that the contingent staff works can be adjusted to meet the demands of the agency. Shands will increase full time staff to 18 people. Shands can provide approximately $25,000 to fund the total project cost, without affecting the costs of other services provided by Shands. In 1995, Shands’ net cash flow from operations exceeded $68 million. Shands already meets and, if CON approved, can continue to meet the requirement of having personnel on-call to provide services evenings and weekends. Subsection 408.035 (1)(i) - immediate and long term financial feasibility of the proposal. The parties stipulated that the long - term financial feasibility of Shands’ proposal is not in dispute and not at issue in this proceeding. Subsection 408.035 (1)(j) - special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations (HMOs). Shands maintains contractual relationships with 22 HMOs statewide, 5 of which include home health care. Shands claims that its application will meet the special needs of HMO patients. Shands does not have an HMO within its organization and is not an HMO. As AHCA has interpreted the criterion, the applicant must be an HMO to quality. Subsection 408.035(1)(k) - needs and circumstances of entities which provide a substantial portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the service district in which the entities are located or in adjacent service districts. The parties stipulated that the criterion is not in dispute or not at issue. Subsection 408.035 (1)(l) - probable impact of the proposed project on the costs of providing health services proposed by the applicant, upon consideration of factors including, but not limited to, the effects of competition on the supply of health services being proposed and the improvements or innovations in financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Medicare reimbursement is the same for all providers of home health services, so that the approval of an additional home health agency is not expected to affect costs. AHCA takes the position that an additional provider in District 4 will shift the market shares to the new provider to the detriment of the existing home health agencies. The available evidence indicates that only Shands, VNA, and St. Lukes serve pediatric patients. In that market, Shands competes with VNA which had 194,691 visits in 1994, the largest number in Duval County. If certified for Medicare reimbursement, Shands will also primarily compete with VNA, and additionally, St. Vincents. The methodology previously used by AHCA to determine the numeric need for home health agencies was an invalid rule because it was anti-competitive and failed to consider cost efficiency. The methodology used by Shands takes those factors into consideration, and demonstrates that an additional home health agency will foster competition and cost-efficiency in District 4. Subsection 408.035 (1)(m) - costs and methods of proposed construction including costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction. The parties stipulated that the criterion is not in dispute or not at issue in this proceeding. 408.035(1)(n) - proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and medically indigent; and SHP (3) - disproportionate share Medicaid and indigent care. Shands is a disproportionate share Medicaid provider and proposes a commitment to provide 5 percent Medicaid and 2 percent indigent care. In 1994 and 1995, Shands provided approximately $27 million and $28 million, respectively, in charity care. Shands Home Care provided approximately 20 percent Medicaid in 1994, 27 percent in 1995, and 27 percent through March of 1996. 408.035(1)(o) - applicants past and proposed provision of services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system, which may include, but is not limited to, acute care, skilled nursing care, home health care, and assisted living facilities. Shands is a multi-level provider, with a range of services from virtually every tertiary service, such as open heart surgery, bone marrow, and organ transplantations to out-patient clinics. In addition to the Gainesville teaching hospital, Shands also operates 422-bed Alachua General Hospital, 83-bed Upreach Rehabilitation Hospital, and 40-bed Vista Pavilion in Gainesville, and 54-bed Bradford Hospital in Starke, 128-bed Lake Shore Hospital in Lake City, and 30-bed Suwannee Hospital in Live Oak. The continuum of care is enhanced by the use of “clinical pathways” which direct the plan of care through an illness from inpatient to rehabilitative to home care. It provides an effective communications tool for the health care providers in each setting. Shands resources include a large statutory teaching hospital, acute care community hospitals, psychiatric and rehabilitation facilities. The continuum of care is enhanced by allowing Medicare patients discharged from the hospitals to District 4 agencies to receive follow- up home health care within the same system. Shands- Jacksonville has an integrated system for health care personnel to care for Medicaid, HMO, or private pay patients. That same group will care for Medicare patients while maintaining its Medicaid and indigent commitment. Subsections 408.035(2) and (3) - construction of new inpatient facilities and CONs prior to 1984 Based on the parties' stipulation, Subsections 408.035 (2) and (3) are not applicable or not in dispute in this proceeding. Agency consistency and rule-making In the preceding batching cycle, AHCA recommended approval of two additional home health agencies in District AHCA rated both of those as completely or partially complying with fewer review criteria, and as not complying with more review criteria than the Shands application in this cycle. The guidelines established by AHCA which require an applicant to demonstrate existing problems with access to and a lack of available home health services are given no independent weight in evaluating the application, having not been adopted by rule. The issues are considered to the extent that accessibility and availability are included in the applicable statutory review criteria. On balance, Shands meets the criteria for approval of its CON to provide home health care to Medicare recipients in District 4.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Agency For Health Care Administration enter a Final Order issuing CON 8391 to Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., to establish a Medicare-certified home health agency in AHCA District 4 conditioned on providing 5 percent of total annual gross revenues by payor to Medicaid patients and 2 percent to indigent care. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of March, 1997. ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James M. Barclay, Esquire Cobb, Cole and Bell 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact Background Respondent published a fixed need pool for Medicare- certified home health agencies for the certificate-of-need (CON) review cycle commencing in March, 1992, and determined that Service District XI did not need any additional home health agencies. On February 17, 1992, Petitioner timely notified Respondent that the fixed need pool calculation was in error. On March 6, 1992, Petitioner timely filed a petition challenging the fixed need pool determination, thereby commencing DOAH Case No. 92-2289. On February 24, 1992, Petitioner filed a letter of intent to submit a CON application for the development of a Medicare-certified home health agency in District XI. On March 24, 1992, Petitioner timely submitted an application for CON 6951 to establish a home health agency in Service District XI. On July 17, 1992, Respondent notified Petitioner of the intent to deny the application. Petitioner timely filed a petition challenging the intent to deny, thereby commencing DOAH Case No. 92-4795. Petitioner is adversely and substantially affected by Respondent's decisions concerning the fixed need pool and intent to deny Petitioner's CON application. Need for Proposed Health Care Facilities and Services in Relation to Applicable District Plan and State Health Plan Fixed Need Bed Pool Respondent calculated the fixed need bed pool based on Rule 59C-1.031, which is set forth in the Conclusions of Law. The purpose of the rule is to determine the required number of home health agencies by finding the cost efficient agency size (CEAS) "in number of visits at which economy of scale is achieved." Once the optimal number of visits is thereby determined, Respondent can calculate how many home health agencies are required in a specific service district. Pursuant to the rule, Respondent divided 181 nonexcluded home health agencies into four equal groups of equal numbers of agencies. These groups were divided by median numbers of visits and arrayed, as required by the rule, into groups from the lowest to the highest number of visits. Respondent then calculated for each group the median number of visits and mean cost per agency. The results of these calculations are as follows: Group Median # of Visits Average Cost Per Visit 1 5,000 $42.14 2 15,000 $45.88 3 31,000 $46.93 4 64,000 $45.95 Pursuant to Rule 59C-1.031, Respondent determined the percentage reductions, comparing "each grouping to the previous grouping." Respondent next checked for a cost reduction of at least 5 percentage points between two groups, as required by the rule. Between groups 1 and 2, there was no reduction of cost, but rather an increase of 8.88 percent. Between groups 2 and 3, there was no reduction, but an increase of 2.29 percent. Between groups 3 and 4, there was a reduction, but only of 2.09 percent. Under the rule, the only role of the first group, and its average cost per visit, is to serve as a standard against which the second group can be measured. Thus, Respondent did not calculate the percentage reduction between the average cost of the first group, which has the lowest average cost, and the average cost of any other group. Petitioner contends that the rule requires or permits a rolling comparison of group 4 with group 1. If so, the reduction between groups 4 and 1 would be 8.29 percent. There are no mean visit cost reductions of at least 5 percent between groups 1 and 2, 2 and 3, or 3 and 4. Under the rule, Respondent is required to choose the median number of visits of the grouping for which the average cost per visit was at least 5 percent less than the average cost per visit of the "previous grouping." If two or all three of the comparisons yield at least 5 percent reductions, then, rather than take the grouping corresponding to the greatest reduction or the lowest average cost per visit, the rule identifies the last of the qualifying reductions as the CEAS. As noted above, the CEAS is used to calculate the fixed need pool. In the absence of any 5 percent reduction between groups 1 and 2, 2 and 3, or 3 and 4, Respondent identified two alternatives. First, it could find that there was no fixed need pool. As Respondent's Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor testified, Respondent could have declined to publish a fixed need pool because it could not apply the rule. "And at that point, the certificate of need reviewer would have to rely on other criteria other than fixed need-pool in determining whether there was a need." Tr., p. 87. In the second alternative identified by Respondent, it could select group 4 as the CEAS because the comparison between it and group 3 resulted in the only positive reduction in average costs per visit, unless group 1 was compared with some other group. An unfortunate concomitant of this alternative is that group 4 represents the second highest cost per visit. Despite this fact, Respondent chose the second alternative and proceeded to calculate the fixed need pool for home health agencies accordingly. The effect of Respondent's selection of group 4 was to calculate the fixed need bed pool based upon a relatively high number of visits per facility. The CEAS in this case was 64,000 visits. Thus, roughly 1/13th of the agencies would be needed under Respondent's fixed need pool than would have been needed if the CEAS had been set at 5000 visits, which corresponds to the least expensive group--group 1. The practical effect of Respondent's selection of group 4 was that the fixed need pool for Service District XI was zero. If group 1 had been selected, the fixed need pool would have been 14. The interpretation given the rule by Respondent lacks reason, as does the interpretation for which Petitioner contends. The correct interpretation requires the adoption of the first alternative in which Respondent acknowledges the inapplicability of the rule and leaves parties free to litigate the issue of need without regard to any published fixed need pool. Both rejected interpretations ignore the plain language of the rule. Respondent's argument falters by setting up group 1 as a "previous group" to group 4. The rule leaves no doubt that the groups are to be arrayed in ascending order of size. Given the rule's obvious reliance upon the principle of economies of scale, there is no reasonable basis for inferring the authority for a final comparison of group 4 to group 1. On the other hand, Petitioner's interpretation disregards the requirement that a substantial reduction of 5 percent triggers the identification of the CEAS group. Petitioner's argument that this interpretation most closely follows the intent of the rule is erroneous. In fact, two contradictory intentions emerge from close study of the rule. The more evident is that the rule intends to restrict market access without substantial regard to the principle of cost containment. In the absence of a rule challenge, the rule must be applied without regard to this feature. But Respondent's unchallenged disregard of the critical principle of cost- containment does not militate strongly in favor of allowing Respondent to extend the reach of this dubious aspect of the rule by engrafting upon it layers of nonrule policy to cover contingencies, which, incidentally, Respondent should have easily foreseen. The rule reflects a bias toward restricting market entry by home health agencies without regard to cost efficiency. As noted above, the rule precludes the possibility that the group with the lowest number of visits (and thus generating the largest fixed need pool) could ever be selected as the CEAS. Also as noted above, the rule's preference for later reductions of at least 5 percent, without regard to comparing average costs or even percentage reductions, again encourages the selection as the CEAS of the group with the larger number of visits (thus generating the smallest fixed need pool). Third, as Respondent contends, in no way can Rule 59C-1.031 be interpreted to require Respondent to select the CEAS based on the group with the lowest average cost per visit. As Respondent's Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor testified, "the only reason why we regulate home health agencies under the certificate of need program and why we restrict market entry is based on the argument that larger size agencies are more cost-effective." The Supervisor added: "If that assumption were no longer true generally, then there would be actually no reason for us to control market entry for home health agencies." Tr., p. 81. In fact, Respondent has detected a decreasing correspondence between the size of a home health agency in number of visits and its average cost per visit, as agencies' costs migrate toward applicable cost ceilings. This was easily predictable and means that many more cases can be anticipated in which no CEAS will emerge from the rule's formula because no later group represents a 5 percent reduction in cost from a previous group. Implicitly acknowledging this practical problem with the rule, as well as hopefully the counterproductive effect of the rule upon the attainment of cost-containment, Respondent has also proposed the deregulation of home health agencies in terms of the issuance of CON's. The other source of the intent of the rule is derived from the definition of the CEAS, which is the objective of the rule's calculations. The CEAS is the "cost efficient agency size . . . at which economy of scale is achieved." "Economy of scale" is defined in the following statement: The behavior pattern of costs recognizes that gains in operating efficiencies act to reduce costs per unit to a certain point (economies of scale) and that[,] as the level of production continues to increase[,] operating inefficiencies take effect (diminishing returns). Respondent's interpretation of the rule, which stresses the intention to restrict market access without substantial regard for the principle of cost containment, fails to account adequately for the fact that diminishing returns or diseconomies of scale may actually have already begun before the second group is considered. The intent of the rule is to find the cost efficient agency size at which economies of scale are achieved. If, as here, the economies of scale are only encountered within the first group (i.e., the group with the agencies with the smallest number of visits), then it is impossible to justify Respondent's interpretive nonrule policy that exacerbates the tendency of the rule to restrict market access without substantial regard to the principle of cost containment. Thus, Respondent's claim that its interpretation of the rule is most consistent with the intent of the rule is flawed. In fact, the rule contains contradictory intentions, and Respondent, at best, has adopted the interpretation most consistent with the more dubious intent inferable from the rule. Petitioner's interpretation is most consistent with the better intent inferable from the rule--i.e., the CEAS is the "cost efficient agency size . . . at which economy of scale is achieved." However, Petitioner's interpretation fails to take into account the intent of the rule favoring larger providers. Petitioner's deemphasis of this aspect of the rule commendably pursues the critical principle of cost containment. But Petitioner's contrivance of the rolling comparison in which group 4 is compared to group 1 suffers from a disregard of the language of the rule regarding the arraying of the groups in ascending order and the comparison of each of the three largest groups with its previous group. There is no other reasonable conclusion than that the rule could not produce a fixed need pool, Respondent's determination of a fixed need pool of zero is incorrect, and the parties should have been allowed to litigate the question of need without regard to Respondent's incorrect determination of a fixed need pool of zero and without a showing of not-normal circumstances. Need in General The absence of the fixed need pool does not mean that the inputs to the formula are without value. To the contrary, the above-described calculations under the rule clearly justify determining need on the basis of the finding that the most cost efficient agency size is the agency in which the median number of visits is 5000. To achieve this most cost-efficient agency size, the number of home health agencies in District XI could be expanded by 14. Thus, Petitioner has proved the need for another home health agency. The applicable district and state health plans fail to identify any groups with a quantifiable lack of services or special need for home health care services. Plan language regarding preferences implies a comparative evaluation process, which is, at most, not readily applicable to the present situation involving a single applicant. In any event, it appears that Petitioner would serve a variety of subgroups of District XI that are specified in the district plan as medically underserved, even though the plan does not indicate that any of these groups currently has unmet needs in terms of home health agency services. It also appears that Petitioner would serve a greater percentage of Medicaid-eligible and medically indigent patients that is typical for existing home health agencies in District XI. Based on the findings of the preceding paragraph, Petitioner was entitled to full compliance with the corresponding preferences of the district plan, rather than the noncompliance and partial compliance that it was given for these preferences in the State Agency Action Report (SAAR). Respondent should have given Petitioner full compliance on the remaining preferences under the district plan, although several of them appear to have little to do with need. Petitioner has a working arrangement with the prime referral source, physicians. Also, by virtue of its acquisition of an existing home health agency, Petitioner will also have working arrangements with various health care providers in the area. The deficiency with the district plan cited in the SAAR concerning working arrangement with AIDS referral networks is of little importance as the AIDS referral networks, which have their own home health agencies, will be competitors of Petitioner. The SAAR likewise incorrectly gives Petitioner partial or no compliance with preferences in the State plan with respect to AIDS patients, which Petitioner clearly proposes to serve; counties underserved by existing home health agencies, which includes Dade County based on the above-described calculations concerning the most cost efficient agency size; and the proposal of a comprehensive quality assurance program and the seeking of accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, both of which Petitioner proposes to do. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has clearly demonstrated a need for the proposed project without regard to not-normal circumstances and despite the absence of a valid fixed need pool for home health agencies in the subject batching cycle. Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization, and Adequacy of Like and Existing Health Care Services According to the SAAR, there are sufficient home health agencies in District XI. However, Petitioner has proved that the proposed project will increase the availability or access of home health agency services based on the above-described calculations concerning the most cost efficient agency size. Ability of Applicant to Provide Quality of Care The parties have stipulated that this criterion is either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criterion. Availability and Adequacy of Other Health Care Facilities and Services According to the SAAR, there are sufficient home health agencies in District XI. However, Petitioner has proved that existing home health agencies are not adequate or sufficiently available based on the above-described calculations concerning the most cost efficient agency size. Probable Economies and Improvements in Service that May Be Derived from Operation of Joint, Cooperative, or Shared Health Care Resources The parties have stipulated that this criterion is either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criterion. Need for Special Equipment and Services Not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas The parties have stipulated that this criterion is either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criterion. Need for Research and Educational Facilities The parties have stipulated that this criterion is either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criterion. Availability of Resources for Project Accomplishment and Operation, Effects of Project on Clinical Needs of Health Professional Training Programs, Extent to which Services Will Be Accessible to Schools for Health Professions, Availability of Alternative Uses of Such Resources for the Provision of Other Health Services, and Extent to which the Proposed Services Will Be Accessible to All Residents of the Service District The parties have stipulated that these criteria are either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criteria. The sole exception concerns the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district. Petitioner has proved that the proposed services would be accessible to all residents of the service district. Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility of Project The parties have stipulated that these criteria are either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criteria. The sole exception concerns the extent to which the long-term financial feasibility of the project is a function of Petitioner's utilization assumptions. The SAAR predicates its assignment of only partial compliance with this criterion upon Petitioner's failure to demonstrate access problems and justify the projected patient volume. However, to the extent that these criticisms reflect an incorrect need determination, Petitioner has proved that the proposed project satisfies the criterion of long-term financial feasibility based on the above-described calculations concerning the most cost efficient agency size. Special Needs and Circumstances of Health Maintenance Organizations The parties have stipulated that this criterion is either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criterion. Needs and Circumstances of Entities Providing a Substantial Portion of Their Services or Resources to Individuals Not Residing in the Service District in which the Entities Are Located or in Adjacent Service Districts The parties have stipulated that this criterion is either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criterion. Probable Impact of Proposed Project on Costs of Providing Health Services Proposed by Applicant Based on Effects of Competition on Supply of Health Services Being Proposed and Improvement or Innovations in the Financing and Delivery of Health Services which Foster Competition and Service to Promote Quality Assurance and Cost-Effectiveness The parties have stipulated that this criterion is either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criterion. Costs and Methods of Proposed Construction The parties have stipulated that this criterion is either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criterion. Applicant's Past and Proposed Provision of Health Care Services to Medicaid Patients and the Medically Indigent The parties have stipulated that this criterion is either not applicable to Petitioner's application or that the application has adequately addressed the criterion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order approving the application for CON 6951. ENTERED on September 8, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 8th day of September, 1993.
Findings Of Fact VNA Healthcare Group of Florida, Inc. is a non- profit parent corporation with four health-related subsidiaries. Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which is licensed and Medicare- certified to provide home health care in the District VII, counties of Orange, Seminole and Osceola. VNA Respite Care, Inc. (hereafter "VNA Respite") is a licensed and non-Medicare certified subsidiary of VNA Healthcare Group which presently Provides private duty nursing services across District borders to residents of Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, Marion, Sumter, Volusia, Polk, and Brevard counties. VNA Respite currently has offices in Orlando, Sanford, Longwood, Kissimmee, and Leesburg. Community Health Services, Inc. d/b/a VNA of Brevard, provides licensed Medicare- certified home health services in Brevard County. VNA of Central Florida, Inc. is the Community Care for the Elderly program provided in Orange and Seminole counties. On or before December 15, 1985, Visiting Nurse Association, Inc. (A) timely filed a CON application to establish a Medicare-certified home health care agency in District III. The application clearly identified Leesburg, Lake County, Florida, which is within District III, as the existing base of operations for the proposed agency. VNA applied for a CON to make its existing local home health agency, VNA Respite, Inc. eligible for Medicare reimbursement. The application, identified as CON number 4356, was denied by the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) of July 16, 1986. VNA's was the sole home health care agency application reviewed in this batching cycle, which contemplated a July, 1987 planning horizon. Since that time, HRS takes the position that it cannot tell what the horizon would be because its rules and policies have been invalidated. (TR 270-271). HRS is the agency responsible for certification and licensure of home health agencies in Florida. A home health agency in Florida must obtain a CON from HRS before it can become eligible to receive Medicare reimbursement. Medicare is a federally funded health program for elderly and disabled persons. Medicare reimbursement of home health agencies is on a cost reimbursement basis with a cap for each specific discipline covered. Home health agency costs in excess of the Medicare caps must be absorbed by the home health agency. This affects financial feasibility of individual applicants. Conversely, it also insures that traditional concepts of price competition have no applicability to home health agencies to the extent they provide Medicare reimbursable services and further establishes that there is negligible impact on competition among these labor (as opposed to capital) intensive providers. On August 15, 1906, VNA timely petitioned for a formal administrative hearing to challenge the denial. The only issue at the final hearing was whether VNA should be granted a CON. Both parties agreed that the only criteria remaining to be litigated were Florida Statutes subsections 381.494(6)(c) 1,2, 3, 4, 9, and 12 and 381.494 (6)(c) 8 as it relates to the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district. Presently, HRS has no rule or policy designating a numeric methodology to determine the need for new home health agencies in any given district. Review of CON applications for home health agencies is based upon statutory criteria of Section 384.494(6)(c), the merits of the proposal, and the district need demonstrated by the applicant. At final hearing, VNA, through its expert in need analysis for purposes of CON review, Sharon Gordon-Girvin. Presented two numeric methodologies to calculate need in District III. The method represented as the state's policy or "approach" for determining need was based upon an invalidated proposed rule which is no longer utilized by HRS and which, although pronounced reasonable" by both Ms. Gordon-Girvin and Respondent's spokesman, Reid Jaffee, cannot be legitimately used here as a reasonable methodology. (See Conclusions of Law. The other methodology presented by Gordon-Girvin was the District III Health Council need methodology. Gordon-Girvin and Jaffee each opined that District III's methodology is a very conservative procedure because of its use of a 5 year horizon line to project home health agency need. It is applied on a county by county basis and reveals a need on each of Alachua, Columbia, Hamilton, Lake and Marion counties for 1989. Jaffee concedes these foregoing figures. The plan also reveals a net need in 1987 for an additional agency in Alachua, Lake, Hamilton, and Columbia counties and in 1988 for an additional agency in Alachua, Lake, Hamilton, Columbia, and Marion counties. The District III Health Plan provides for a separate sub-district for each county. However, a county basis for subdistricting District III is not required by statute or rule and no part of the District III Health Plan has been adopted by HRS as a rule. The SAAR addressed the entire district as the service area. Although District III's need methodology does not establish a need for a home health agency for every county within the District, it provides that there are some circumstances in which the local need methodology may be set aside. District III's Review Guidelines provide that additional home health agencies may be granted certificates of need for counties within District III if certain circumstances are documented. The Review Guidelines propose that if residents of a specific area have not had access to home health services for the past calendar year preceding the proposal for new services or residents of a county have not had access to home health services for the past calendar year preceding the proposal for new services due to a patient's ability to pay or source of payment and the CON applicant documents an ability and willingness to accept patients regardless of payment source or ability to pay, the applicant may be approved as an additional home health agency. Although not a rule, this portion of the District III Health Plan is probative of need. In the absence of numeric need, it recommends additional home health agencies based upon a demonstration of unmet need for Medicaid and indigent patients. As of the date of hearing, HRS resisted granting the CON to VNA primarily because of unspecified prior batched applicants still in litigation (TR 232-233). Applicants in litigation are neither approved nor established and their existence, even had it been demonstrated, which it has not, is irrelevant. HRS' post-hearing proposals submit that neither of the proposed need methodologies suggested by VNA is applicable here. HRS urges the determination that VNA has thereby failed to establish numerical need for an additional District-wide home health agency and further submits that there is no compelment substantial evidence of unmet need for Medicaid and indigent patients. However, by a prehearing stipulation ratified at hearing, HRS agreed that, Although DHRS agrees that there is a need in District III for at least 18 other home health agencies, it contends that VNA should be denied its application because of certain other deficiencies in its proposals. (TR 14) VNA's principal office for HRS Service District VII is in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. HRS witness, Reid Jaffee, was the HRS reviewer of VNA's CON application. He candidly admitted that HRS' initial denial was based in part on his Failure to note the existence of VNA's local base of operations for its proposed home health agency. Most of HRS' concerns and reasoning for denial contained within the SAAP were based upon Mr. Jaffe's erroneous cognitive leap that VNA intended to "cover" the entire 16 county geographic area designated as HRS District I II From its corporate headquarters in District VII. Actually, VNA seeks certification of its existing licensed home health agency in District III. VNA Respite, VNA's existing licensed but non-certified home health agency in Leesburg, Lake County, a county within HRS District III, was established in January, 1985, and licensed in July 1986. Its office has continuously been located in and has operated out of Leesburg, Lake County, Florida, and it has continuously provided, without Medicare reimbursement, the same types of home health services as VNA now proposes to provide for Medicare reimbursement if the sought-for CON is granted. If granted a CON, VNA proposes to initially provide medical home health care services to patients in Lake, Citrus, Sumter, Marion, and Alachua counties. Services will initially be coordinated through the existing office of VNA Respite in Leesburg, Lake County, Florida. VNA would later phase in the remaining counties of District III by establishing another base office located in Alachua County. Reid Jaffee stated HRS probably would not have any cause to oppose the CON on the basis of anticipated geographic problems impinging on feasibility or quality of care if the service area were Lake, Sumter, Citrus, and Marion counties serviced from the existing Leesburg, Lake County base. (TR 256-258). In the first year VNA estimates 6,000 visits. In the second year it estimates 12,000 visits. A visit" is defined as the provision of service to meet the needs of a patient at his place of residence. In their Leesburg office, VNA Respite has received an average of 10 calls per week for Medicare reimbursable services which they currently must turn down. VNA submitted corrected financial information because of some inadvertent errors that had been made in the initial application. This was accepted by HRS and permitted by the Hearing Officer because it did not constitute a substantial amendment. It will cost VNA a maximum of $50,000 in start-up costs to operate in District III, although many of these costs have already been met by VNA Respite's previous and existing presence in Lake County. The initial application mistakenly submitted VNA's actual operating budget for a two year period in the place in the application designated for start-up costs. VNA's charges for a visit in the existing service area would be $55 the first year and $60 per visit the second year. The corrected financials reflect a net income projection of $10,442 in the first year and of $19,078 the second year. The project is financially feasible on both a short and a long term basis. Significant economies of scale will be realized by virtue of VNA's size in District VII which affords and will afford VNA Respite in District III the benefits of centralized accounting, billing, personnel services, nurse education services, and quality assurance programs while the use of VNA Respite in Leesburg as a dispatching base will assume quick, quality responsiveness to District III patients' needs. In the past, VNA has never exceeded Medicare cost caps. The projected costs of the VNA application are less than the cost caps in effect for District III. VNA will be operating cost effectively in District III in part because its cost per visit will be less than the Medicare cap. VNA's proposed home health agency will operate with reasonable efficiency if it is phased in as projected by VNA planners and economic experts. VNA proposes to offer the full six-core range of Medicare reimbursable services. It will provide, among other services, skilled nursing and medical supplies, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, home health aid, and medical social services to patients in their homes. These are now offered out of VNA Respite's Leesburg office but are not Medicare reimbursable without a CON. VNA currently offers and proposes to offer high-tech home health services including enterostomal therapy, psychiatric nursing, parenteral-enteral therapy, and oncology and pediatric services. Additionally, homemakers and medical supply services are offered and are proposed to be offered. They are now, and if the application is granted, will continue to be made available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. VNA proposes a voluntary advocacy program. The program anticipates added support to service elderly patients by coordination of volunteers who make daily telephone calls to the elderly or visit them at home. A similar program is working successfully in VNA's District VII operation at the present time. No other similar program is offered by other existing District III providers. By competent, substantial evidence, VNA has demonstrated considerable community and professional health care provider support for approval of its application. VNA Respite has a modest but positive record of community involvement in the areas of citizen education and continuing medical education. It offers health fairs on a regular basis and offers blood pressure clinics and diabetic screening programs weekly. VNA offers special training programs for home health aides which meet the State criteria. Graduates of the program are then employable by any Florida home health agency. The program is taught by VNA's Director of Education and VNA staff members. VNA offers clinical nursing programs ( internships) to students of the nursing schools of the University of Central Florida and University of Florida for nursing, dietary, and medical social worker master level programs. VNA is also a community-based agency, that is, it is governed by a board of directors which is comprised of community members who without pay, serve on the board and set policy. The District Health Plan, Table Home Health 6 entitled "Estimate of Population in Need of Home Health Services District III 1984 and 1989" reveals that: The licensed and approved home health agencies in District III in 1984 were only able to meet 72 percent of the existing need for home health services in District III. In 1984 only 66 percent of the need for home health services was met by licensed and approved home health agencies in Lake County. In 1984 only 59 percent of the need for home health services was met by licensed and approved home health agencies in Marion County. In 1984 only 58 percent of the need for home health services was met by licensed and approved home health agencies in Alachua County. In 1934 only 51 percent of the need for home health services was met by licensed and approved home health agencies in Sumter County. There was no hint that more recent figures (i.e. figures for the calendar year immediately preceding the proposal) are in existence or available. There is no minimum amount of indigent care required by Statute or rule which must be provided by a Medicare-certified home health agency. VNA committed at formal hearing to serve the following mix of patients by payor class from its VNA Respite base in District III if a CON is granted: 37 percent Medicare; 7.2 percent Insurance; 2.5 percent Medicaid; 2.3 percent Indigent. This revised commitment is more than eight times greater than the other District III home health agencies average commitment of .28 percent for indigent and three times their average for Medicaid patients. There was uncontroverted testimony that occasionally in instances when a patient's funding has been depleted or a patient is temporarily off Medicare for some reason, other District III home health agencies have discontinued all or select services even though the patient was still in need of the services. The VNA Respite office in Leesburg has provided indigent care in many past situations despite its lack of Medicare and Medicaid funding. VNA proposes to expand its service area to include District III in part to meet the need it perceives in District III for a nonprofit charitable home health agency. VNA's application states a commitment to provide totally uncompensated care to indigents. This noble ideal has to be taken with a grain of salt, however. A more realistic commitment is contained in VNA's Mission Statement, which reflects the basic philosophy and direction for VNA. It states that based upon the financial ability of the agency through available charity monies, VNA will provide select services to those patients having medical need regardless of their ability to pay. Absent a greater demonstration of guaranteed public and private beneficiary funding than appears in this record, the former lofty goal cannot be accepted as credible. However, the latter Mission Statement may be taken as a credible and valid commitment which is reasonably capable of fulfillment by VNA Respite for the reasons set out in the next Finding of Fact. VNA's dedication to providing indigent care and its Mission Statement policy have been implemented beyond the ramifications set forth in the Mission Statement through a policy of VNA's board of directors which transfers proceeds from other VNA subsidiaries to meet the service requirements of the certified home health agency. This policy allows VNA to provide more charity care than that for which it has been reimbursed by charitable contributions. VNA is one of only two nonprofit licensed home health agencies in District III. Due to VNA's non- profit status, it has opportunities to obtain charity monies to provide care to patients who have no payment source. In District VII, VNA typically receives monies from the public United Way and other private foundations. VNA`s dedication to service of indigents is reflected by its service in District VII. In District VII, in 1985, 70 percent of all charity visits were provided by VNA, although there were five other certified agencies. VNA maintains a professional advisory group which reviews the voluntary board's policy and VNA's provision of services. Such a professional advisory group is mandated under Medicare. It is made up of physicians and social workers but also includes lay members from the counties served. Qualifications for all members, but particularly for lay membership, was not sufficiently explored at hearing to make it possible to determine how "professional" the advisory group is, but it will be expanded to include representatives from District III counties if a CON is granted. VNA has established several internal departments and agency policies to insure a high quality of the home health services it provides. The intent behind VNA's Quality Assurance Department program is to oversee quality review controls and monitor nursing services through utilization and clinical record reviews to assure adherence to professional standards, corporate goals, and statements of policy (including the Mission Statement.) The evidence as to the implementation of each part of this lofty intent in actual practice in the Leesburg office of VNA Respite is hardly overwhelming, however, VNA has adequately demonstrated by competent substantial evidence that each VNA staff member receives a 3-week orientation upon initial employment and that after 3 months each staff member is evaluated by a quality assurance staff member accompanying the newcomer on home visits to review and verify the newcomer's clinical skills. It is also established that VNA's Community and Staff Education Department trains and orients staff and develops continuing medical education programs as discussed above. VNA publishes and provides its contract nurses and therapists with a detailed Policy and Procedure Manual, thereby providing further quality assurance, uniformity of care, and further staff training beyond that already described. The "track record" of its existing home health agency offices elsewhere provides some further insight for predicting the quality of care to be offered if the present CON application is granted. In 1985, VNA, Inc. made 144,000 visits or 48 percent of the total 297,000 visits made by home health agencies in Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties. VNA, Inc. was formed in 1951 and has been Medicare-certified since 1966. Annual state licensing surveys conducted for VNA operations in Osceola, Orange and Seminole Counties have revealed either no deficiencies in operations or minimum deficiencies, none of which have ever addressed the quality of care provided. VNA demonstrated that accessibility of residents of certain counties within District III to certain types of core home health services is currently limited, particularly as to certain high-tech services and certain non- traditional forms of nursing. VNA has demonstrated that the 19 existing providers within District III have often failed to render certain types of high- tech and specialty nursing services within District III. It has been stipulated that two of the 19 existing providers have home offices located outside District III. They are Central Florida Home Health Service based in Volusia County and Gulf Coast Home Health Service based in Pinellas County. Lakeview Terrace Christian Retirement's CON and license limit it to providing home health care only to its residents, rather than to the general population of District III. Unfortunately, the evidence of record on the inaccessibility of services does not always follow the same county lines and this factor together with the variation of types of service which are sometimes inaccessible renders reaching any determination with regard to inaccessibility and unmet need on a District- wide basis difficult. The evidence is, however, clear that VNA has received a number of pediatric referrals because of the inability of other home health agencies to provide this nursing service. These remain a continuing need. Another continuing need is for long term intermittent visits which are difficult to obtain in District III, particularly11 for the elderly. Referrals to VNA Respite in District III have also been made from HRS in Lake and Marion Counties because of VNA's proven ability to provide otherwise inaccessible and unavailable high-tech services. Some of these latter referrals are somewhat remote in time from the date of hearing but there was no contrary HRS evidence that these situations of unmet need have alleviated. Seasonal fluctuations of population and the inadequacies of competing home health agency staffs put an increased strain on the existing District III home health agencies' ability to meet the current population's needs. VNA provides nurses specially trained and certified in a variety of the high-tech specialties. For example, VNA Respite in Leesburg offers certified enterstomal therapists, as well as certified intravenous (I.V.) therapy nurses with specialized training. From this specialization, it may be inferred that VNA is able to offer a higher level of care, increase the continuity of patient care, and decrease the amount of time necessary for each home visitation with certain patients within counties within a reasonable radius of Leesburg. VNA's application, as modified, satisfies the applicable planning guidelines established by the most recent District III Plan. There is negligible impact on competition in labor intensive providers such as home health agencies.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a Final Order granting VNA a CON to establish a District-wide home health agency as set forth in the proposal and conditioned upon its fulfilling its 2.3 percent indigent and 2. 5 percent Medicaid percentage commitments and upon phasing in its services in two stages, beginning with its first base at VNA Respite in Leesburg, Lake County. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 21st day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-3558 The following constitute rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the respective proposed findings of fact (FOF): Petitioners proposed FOF: 1-6 Covered in FOF 1. 8-14 Accepted but as stated subordinate to the facts as found. 15-17 Covered in FOF 16. 18 Accepted but subordinate to the facts as found. 19-21 Covered in FOF 17. Rejected as conclusionary and not supported by credible competent substantial evidence. Covered in FOF 18. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 24. Covered in FOF 14. 27-23 Covered in FOF 24. 29 Covered in FOF 18. 30-35 Covered in FOF 24. 36-37 Covered in FOF 18. 38 Rejected as a conclusion of law of facts as found 25-26. 39-40 Covered in FOF 16, 22 and 25. 41-52 Except as covered in FOF 16, 22, and 25-26, these proposals are subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found, or to the degree indicated in those FOF, are not supported by direct competent substantial evidence. 53-55 Except as covered in FOF 3, 25-26, these proposals are subordinate to the facts an found and unnecessary. 56-57 Covered in FOF 19. 58 Rejected as stated as not supported by the direct credible evidence as a whole. 59-68 Covered in FOF 22-23. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 20. 71-74 Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 21. 75-86 In large part these proposals are irrelevant for the reasons stated in the facts as found; that material which is not irrelevant is CUMULATIVE, subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. Additionally these proposals are so unsatisfactorily numbered or otherwise delineated as to be something apart from proposals of findings of ultimate material fact. See FOF 10, 19, and 27. 87-94 Covered in FOF 15. 95-96 Covered in FOF 14. 97-98 Subordinate and unnecessary to the facts as found. 99-101 Covered in FOF 15. 102-105 Rejected in part for the reasons set out in FOF 4 and 28 in part as not supported by the record as a whole and in part as subordinate and unnecessary. 106-110 Except as covered in FOF 7-12, 19, 22, and 25, and the conclusions of law (COL), these proposals are rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. 111. Rejected as not supported by the record as a whole. See FOF 2 and 8. 112-118 Except as covered in FOF COL, these proposals are the record as a whole. 7-12, 19, 22, aid 25, and the rejected as not supported by 119 Covered in FOF 2. 120 Covered in FOF 10-12 and the COL. 121-129 Except as covered in FOF 7-12 and 14, rejected as not 1-131 Supported by the record as a whole. Covered in FOF 22 and 25. 132 Covered in FOF 21-23. 133-134 Rejected as conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed FOF: Covered in FOF 2. Covered in FOF 5. Covered in FOF 6. Covered in FOF 1. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 16. Covered in FOF 17. Covered in FOF 21. Covered in FOF 3. Covered in FOF 2-3. Covered in FOF 4. Covered in FOF 7. Covered in FOF 8-12. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Leo P. Rock, Jr., Esquire Linda D. Schoonover, Esquire Suite 1200 201 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 John Rodriguez, Esquire, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Homemakers Upjohn, is the trade name of Homemakers International Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Home and Health Care Services, Inc. which in turn is wholly owned by the Upjohn Company. Petitioner has been providing home health care services through its offices in West Palm Beach and Boca Raton to private patients for several years. No question was raised with respect to its competence to provide the services proposed. Petitioner proposes to continue to serve private patients and to serve Medicare patients and any others for which it receives compensation. By applications dated August 24, 1977 (Exhibit 4) Petitioner requested the issuance of Certificates of Need from Respondent which were required for licensure. After the receipt of additional information the applications were referred to Health Planning Council Inc., the health systems agency for Palm Beach County, for review and recommendation. At the Council meeting on 27 October 1977 the applications were considered with the Staff Report (Exhibit 7) which contained the various factors supporting disapproval of the certificates of need, and the Council voted to disapprove the applications 20 to 0 with 2 abstentions and 8 members absent. The factors noted by the Council in support of disapproval of Certificate of Need were: The recent plan adopted by the Council indicates a need for five (5) agencies to serve Palm Beach County. There are presently five agencies licensed to serve the county. The existing agencies have not reached an "optimum monthly census necessary for efficient operation, therefore, the addition of a new agency cannot be justified at this time and would only duplicate existing services and increase the indirect costs associated with the delivery of home health care. The proposal does not meet the Council's criteria of a minimum of five (5) services for home health agencies. The proposal does not indicate whether Homemakers Upjohn will accept patients regardless of ability to pay, a criteria adopted by the Council. At the time Petitioner's applications wore submitted to tie Council, Emergency Rules 10 ER-77.10-12 were in effect and provided generally that a certificate of need would be granted based upon a computation of the number of home health care agencies needed using as part of the equation the assumption that 4 percent of the patients discharged from hospitals enter a home health care agency. Applying this assumption would lead to a determination that 8 home health care agencies are required in Palm Beach County. The model developed and used by the Council in determining the number of home health care agencies required in their area of concern was based upon a patient origin study in the five-county area showing 2.5 percent of all hospital dischargees are admitted to home health care. Applying this percentage instead of 4 percent provided by the Emergency Rule resulted in a determination that only five home health care agencies are required in Palm Beach County. At the time of the application five home health care agencies were in operation in Palm Beach County. Two additional agencies, which previously existed, had been closed due to lack of patients. Evidence presented at the hearing was that six home health care providers are currently operating in Palm Peach County. Criteria also contained in the Planning Document (Exhibit 14) included the provision that a home health care agency should provide, at a minimum, five of the following health related services: Nursing care - RN and LPN Home Health Aide Physical Therapy Speech Therapy Occupational Therapy Nutritional Guidance Medical Social Services In its application Petitioner proposed to provide RN, LPN, Home Health Aide, Homemaker, and Companion services although it professed to have the capability of providing the various therapies listed by the Council, when and if, required. It is noted that the Council's action to recommend denial of the certificate of need to Petitioner took place on 27 October 1977 the same date the parties stipulated that the emergency rules expired. Since the rules were filed with the Secretary of State on 25 July 1977, became effective on that date (Exhibit 16) and were valid for only 90 days (Section 120.54(9)(c) Florida Statutes) it would appear that these rules expired on 3 October 1977, a date preceding the action taken by the Council. However, this factor is not relevant to Petitioner's position that the law applicable to its obtaining a certificate of need is the law in effect on the date its application for a certificate of need was filed. In accordance with standard procedures the recommendation to deny Petitioners application for certificates of need was forwarded by Health Planning Council Inc. to Respondent on December 7, 1977 listing the factors noted above as reasons for denying the app1ication. On 1 November 1977 the Emergency Rules had been replaced with permanent Rules 10-5.11(14)(a) Florida Administrative Code. This latter rule provided generally that a certificate of need cannot be issued with the daily census of the existing home health care agencies in the service area reached an average of 300 patients. At the time of the hearing six home health care agencies were operating in Palm Beach County. The Visiting Nurses Association of West Palm Beach is a non-profit community supported agency which serves some 786 patients daily. In addition to serving Medicare patients they provide services to indigents. A-Association Home Health Agency, Lake Worth, is a home health agency serving some 100 patients daily including many Medicare patients. Visiting Readi-Nurse is the newest home health agency in Palm Beach County. Its last quarterly census shows that 37 patients, including medicare patients, are served daily. Gold Coast Hone Health Services is a licensed home health care agency in Palm Beach County serving Medicare patients and has a quarterly census of 48- 50 patients per day. Unicare Palm Beach Inc. is a home health care agency licensed in Palm Beach County serving Medicare patients and serves some 68-70 patients daily. Community Home Health Services is licensed in Palm Beach County and serves some 43 patients daily. Granting a certificate of need to Petitioner would allow Petitioner to obtain licensure and thereby qualify to serve Medicare patients presently served by existing home health care agencies. This could reduce the number of Medicare patients served by these agencies thereby increasing their administrative costs per patient and increasing the cost of services provided to home health care patients. The present average daily census of patients in Palm Beach County is approximately 180 per agency and if the patients served by Palm Beach Visiting Nurses Association is deducted the remaining 5 home health care agencies average less than 60 patients per day. Petitioner contends that the criteria applied by Respondent in denying the certificate of need on December 9, 1977 was incorrect and that its application must be determined pursuant to the Emergency Rules which were in effect at the time the application was filed. Petitioner also contends that the Planning Document (Exhibit 14) used by the Health Planning Council is a rule, and since it was not properly promulgated, is invalid. Respondent reviewed the recommendations of the Council in accordance with the criteria contained in Rule 10-5.11(14) Florida Administrative Code. Respondent further contends that the Planning Document (Exhibit 14) is not a rule. Petitioner presented no evidence remotely tending to show that patients in the service area were unable to obtain necessary home health care services from existing providers. The only evidence presented was that Petitioner was capable of providing the services proposed; that it met the criteria in the Emergency Rules; and, if the need for additional services was subsequently found to exist, it could provide these additional home health care services. Intervenors proposed findings of fact not incorporated in the above findings were deemed irrelevant to the results reached or were not concurred in.
