The Issue Whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Alachua General Hospital, Inc., Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corporation and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., meet the requirements of law and should be approved based on application of the statutory review criteria or upon other considerations.
Findings Of Fact Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center is a community-based skilled nursing facility of 120 beds located in Ocala, Florida. Oakhurst has a history of high occupancy and is a superior rated facility. At hearing, Oakhurst acknowledged a number of inaccuracies in its application. Some staffing ratios were misstated. The data utilized to calculate financial ratios is different from the data set forth in the combined statement. The physical location of the facility was incorrectly identified. The application misstated the existing number of beds in the facility. Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the need for the health care facilities and services and hospices being proposed in relation to the applicable district plan and state health plan, except in emergency circumstances which pose a threat to the public health. As to the application of Oakhurst, utilization rates indicate that need exists for additional community nursing care services in Marion County. Oakhurst experiences full occupancy. Projected occupancy levels set forth in the Oakhurst application are reasonable. The evidence establishes that the need for additional beds exists and that the application of Oakhurst is consistent with the applicable district and state health plans. Section 408.035(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the 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 of the applicant. Approval of the Oakhurst application will increase the availability of community nursing care at a superior rated facility and will meet the projected need determined by the AHCA's determination of the fixed pool. Section 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's ability to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Oakhurst is a superior rated facility with a history of providing high quality care. There is no indication that the 60 bed unit addition will result in a decline in quality of care. Section 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. The evidence fails to establish that approval of the Oakhurst application will result in probable economies and improvements in service from joint, cooperative, or shared health care operations. Section 408.035(1)(i), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the immediate and long-term financial feasibility of the proposal. Since purchase by the current owners, Oakhurst's financial performance has been satisfactory. Losses experienced during the two years following the purchase are attributed to accelerated depreciation. The facility is currently profitable. Although there was evidence that insufficient funds are being generated to maintain the facility's physical plant, the evidence is insufficient to establish that Oakhurst is unable to maintain the facility. Projected occupancy rates are reasonable. Funds for capital and operating expenditures are available to Oakhurst. Notwithstanding current operation of the facility and availability of funds, Oakhurst's proposal is not financially feasible. Oakhurst's revenue projections are not reasonable. This finding is based on the credible testimony of expert Charles Wysocki. Mr. Wysocki opined that the Oakhurst application is not financially feasible in the short and long term and that the financial projections in the Oakhurst application are not reliable. Mr. Wysocki's testimony was credible and persuasive. Oakhurst's current Medicaid rate is $71.68. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicaid rates as follows: $77.41 during the construction year; $104.69 during operation year one; and $99.75 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicaid rates are unreasonable. Projected Medicaid rates are overstated and do not appear to account for Medicaid program rate ceilings. Medicaid program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates during years one and two. Oakhurst's current Medicare rate is $186.87. Oakhurst application Schedule 10 projects Medicare rates as follows: $340 during the construction year; $361 during operation year one; and $328 during operation year two. Oakhurst's projected Medicare rates are overstated and unreasonable. Medicare program payment restrictions will not permit payment of such rates. Oakhurst's application overstated revenue projections related to private pay patients. Further, according to Mr. Wysocki, Oakhurst has underestimated expenses related to depreciation, amortization and property taxes. Section 408.035(1)(l), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the 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 the financing and delivery of health services which foster competition and service to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Approval of Oakhurst's application can be expected to have a positive competitive impact on the supply of services being proposed based on the fact that the addition of beds will increase the supply of appropriate placements. Section 408.035(1)(n), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Although Oakhurst has historically participated in the Medicaid program, Oakhurst is currently not subject to Medicaid participation requirements. If the CON at issue in this proceeding is awarded, Oakhurst will be required to provide at least half of the expanded facility's 160 beds to Medicaid patients. Section 408.035(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. To the extent that such information is available, there is no evidence that these services are used inappropriately or inefficiently. Section 408.035(2)(d), Florida Statutes, requires consideration of whether patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the proposed new service. As to community nursing home beds, the AHCA has determined that a need exists for additional capacity in the planning area's nursing homes. It is likely that failure to meet projected need will result in difficulty in locating appropriate placements. The state health plan sets forth "preferences" which are considered in comparative evaluations of competing CON applications. Preference is given to applicants proposing to locate nursing homes in areas within subdistricts with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate is higher in the Alachua planning area than in the Marion planning area. Oakhurst is in the Marion planning area and has the highest occupancy in the planning area. Oakhurst meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants who propose to serve Medicaid residents in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of the nursing homes in the same subdistrict. Exceptions shall be considered for applicants who propose to exclusively serve persons with similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds or propose the development of multi-level care systems. The Marion County Medicaid participation average is 72.93 percent. Oakhurst's application subjects the facility to a 50 percent Medicaid average. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Oakhurst intends to operate a separate 20 bed subunit specializing in skin and wound care. A distinct subacute care program targeted at a specific patient population is a specialized service. Oakhurst does not have specialized Alzheimer services. Oakhurst does not provide care to AIDS patients. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents, including but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. The Oakhurst proposal does not address respite care or adult day care. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. These special features may include, but are not limited to, larger rooms, individual room temperature controls, visitors' rooms, recreation rooms, outside landscaped recreation areas, physical therapy rooms and equipment, and staff lounges. Oakhurst's application meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing to provide innovative therapeutic programs which have been proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functional level and which emphasize restorative care. No party proposes to offer any therapeutic programs which may credibly be identified as "innovative." Preference is given to applicants proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. Exceptions are be considered for facilities proposing to serve upper income residents. Oakhurst's projected rates exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict, therefore Oakhurst does not meets this preference. Preference is given to applicants with a history of providing superior resident care programs in existing facilities in Florida or other states. HRS' evaluation of existing facilities shall consider, but not be limited to, current ratings of licensure facilities located in Florida. AHCA is the successor agency to HRS. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing staffing levels which exceed the minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents than other applicants shall be given preference. Although FCC and Oakhurst propose reasonable staff levels, Alachua's hospital-based unit, by virtue of location, more closely meets this preference than FCC or Oakhurst. Preference is given to applicants who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreation activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants who document plans to will ensure residents' rights and privacy, to use resident councils, and to implement a well-designed quality-assurance and discharge-planning program. All applications meet this preference. Preference is given to applicants proposing lower administrative costs and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst has higher administrative costs and lower resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. Oakhurst does not meet this preference. The district health plan sets forth preferences which are to be considered in comparative evaluations of CON applications. The first applicable district preference is directed toward providing geographic access to nursing home beds. None of the applications meet this preference. The second applicable district preference requires consideration of existing bed utilization. Based on the percentage of elderly population and utilization of existing beds in each area, relative priorities are established. Oakhurst is in a "high need" planning area. Existing nursing homes in the Marion planning area are experiencing occupancy levels between 80 and 90 percent placing Oakhurst in a "moderate occupancy" planning area. According to the preference matrix set forth in the district plan, Oakhurst is in a priority two planning area (high need and moderate occupancy.) The evidence establishes that Oakhurst meets this preference. The third preference relates to the conversion of acute care beds to skilled nursing use. Oakhurst does not intend to convert underutilized hospital beds into skilled nursing beds for step-down or subacute care. The fourth and fifth preferences apply to new facilities of at least 60 beds. No application meets these preferences. The sixth preference states that priority consideration should be given to facilities which propose to offer specialized services to meet the needs of the identified population. Oakhurst proposes to offer a subunit specializing in skin and wound care. Oakhurst meets this preference.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered determining the application of Oakhurst Manor Nursing Center for Certificate of Need #7326 to be incomplete and withdrawn, GRANTING the application of Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., for Certificate of Need #7325 for the 60 remaining beds in the applicable fixed need pool and GRANTING the application of Alachua General Hospital for Certificate of Need #7320 to convert 30 existing acute care beds into a skilled nursing unit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6264 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Alachua General Hospital, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, irrelevant as to the AHCA's review of the proposals prior to notice of intended award. 16, 20. Rejected, unnecessary. 21-26. Rejected, subordinate. 30. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. 32, 34. Rejected, subordinate. 42-50. Rejected, not supported by the evidence. The preferences set forth in the proposed finding are not those contained within Alachua's exhibit #1, which has been utilized in this Recommended Order. 52. Rejected, immaterial. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Rejected, evidence fails to establish that therapy offered is "innovative." 62. Rejected, cumulative. 63-64. Rejected, subordinate. 72. Rejected as to SAAR, unnecessary. 73-76. Rejected, recitation of testimony is not finding of fact. Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corp.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4,6, 8-51. Rejected, unnecessary, application rejected as incomplete and withdrawn from consideration. 52-54, 56-58. Rejected, irrelevant. Although it is true that the application contained the combined audited financial statements for the Harborside facilities, such statement fails to meet the requirement that the application contain an audited financial statement for the applicant. Harborside is not the applicant. 55. Rejected, irrelevant. The agency has cited no authority which would permit the waiver of the statutory requirement. 59. Rejected, immaterial. The document was admitted to demonstrate that the material required by law was not submitted with the CON application. Further consideration constitutes an impermissible amendment to the CON application and is rejected. Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc.'s proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-91. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 93. Rejected, unnecessary. 102-143. References to Oakhurst application, rejected, unnecessary. Agency for Health Care Administration's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 3. Rejected, irrelevant. 4-5. Rejected, unnecessary. 6. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of evidence. 13-16. Rejected. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. 19. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, wherein the CON application sets forth such information. Rejected, unnecessary. The Oakhurst application has been rejected as incomplete and treated herein as having been withdrawn. Comparison is inappropriate. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence. The CON application sets forth the information which the agency asserts was not provided. Rejected, contrary to the comparative review contained herein. Rejected, contrary to the evidence as related to applicable criteria for review set forth in the statute. 35. Rejected, not supported by credible evidence or the administrative rules cited in the proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Dean Bunton, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire BLANK, RIGSBY & MEENAN 204 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald Sternstein, Esquire Frank Rainer, Esquire RUDEN, BARNETT, McCLOSKY, SMITH 215 South Monroe Street Barnett Bank Building, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issues under consideration are those associated with applications filed by the aforementioned private parties seeking certificates of need for skilled nursing home beds based on a fixed need pool of May, 1989, which identified 261 beds for the January, 1992 planning horizon. The beds are available in HRS District III. The applications are for: CON Action No. 5987 Inverness--20 beds; CON Action No. 5912 Suwannee--60 beds; CON Action No. 5913 McCoy-- 60 beds; CON Action No. 5962 Starke--120 or 60 beds; and CON Action N. 5905 Regency--120 beds.
Findings Of Fact Related to the May, 1989 batching cycle HRS has identified a need for 261 nursing home beds in District III. The applicants accept that determination of the pool of beds, that is to say no applicant has sought beds over and above the 261 beds identified by HRS. Further, the parties have expressed their agreement to allow Regency to be granted CON 5905 to construct a new nursing home facility in Lake County, Florida, which will have 120 beds. The written stipulation sets out the parties belief that all applicable criteria for obtaining a certificate of need as set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, have been met. That stipulation is accepted, provided the following conditions are met in issuing the certificate of need: The annual resident population of the facility shall include at least 62% of Medicaid patient days. Two beds shall be dedicated to the care of Alzheimer and respite care residents. The facility shall be a one story design consisting of 43,000 square feet in size. Likewise, the parties have agreed to allow the issuance of CON 5987 to Inverness to add 20 community nursing beds to its existing facility in Inverness, Florida. That written stipulation points out the agreement by the parties concerning the Inverness compliance with all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes as well as any implementing rules set forth in Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Code. The arrangement is one by which existing ACLF beds are converted to nursing home beds. That stipulation is accepted, upon condition that Inverness commit to provide a minimum of 75.2% of total patient days for Medicaid patients. The Inverness stipulation which reiterates Inverness' lack of opposition to the grant of a certificate of need to Regency also withdraws its opposition to McCoy, Starke and Suwannee. By the terms of the stipulation's 140 of the 261 beds in the pool are spoken for. This leaves for consideration the applications of Suwannee, Starke and McCoy. In the absence of subdistricting, District III is divided into seven planning areas. The planning areas are as established by the North Central Florida Health Planning Council, Inc. Planning Area l is constituted of Hamilton, Suwannee, Lafayette, Columbia, Union and Bradford counties. Suwannee intends to place its facility in Suwannee County. Starke intends to place its facility in Columbia County. The expansion of the McCoy facility would occur in Marion County which is the sole county in Planning Area 4. By resort to the North Central Florida Health Planning Council District III Health Plan preferences can be seen concerning the allocation of beds among the applicants within the various planning areas. A copy of that plan is HRS Exhibit No. 2. Under this scheme the McCoy application to add 60 additional nursing home beds to its existing facility in Marion County, Florida, is considered a third priority. A third priority would allow the addition of at least 60 beds and no more than 120 beds. The Suwannee and Starke applications are a fourth priority under the local plan which allows for an addition of up to 60 beds. The McCoy application as presented at hearing responds adequately to all applicable criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, to include the State Health Plan and District III Health Plan. McCoy holds a superior license rating at present and has a proposed capital expenditure for this project of $1,568,000. Taking into consideration the proposed allocation of beds set forth in the local health plan, the distance between the McCoy facility and the proposed facilities in Suwannee and Columbia counties by the applicants Suwannee and Starke and absent proof which clearly identifies that Suwannee and Starke are meaningful competitors against McCoy and its attempt to gain a certificate of need calling for expansion of its facility, the McCoy application should be granted. That grant should be conditioned upon a willingness to serve Alzheimer patients in the proposed 14 bed unit and the commitment to provide Medicaid at a 60% level as a minimum commitment. This arrangement would bring the total number of nursing home beds at McCoy to 120, a desirable number when considering economies of scale. What must be resolved by comparative analysis of the applications of Suwannee and Starke, is which of those competitors for 60 beds out of the 61 beds remaining in the pool should be granted a certificate of need, if any. Starke had noticed its intention to apply for 120 beds and made application for 120 beds and in the alternative for 60 beds. The decision to notice its intent to apply for 120 beds was not misleading nor inconsistent with HRS policy in a circumstance where the application was stated in the alternative for 120 beds or 60 beds. The significant point is that Starke explained its alternatives of 120 beds or 60 beds in detail in the course of the application. HRS perceives that the 120 bed notice of intent took into account a lesser number of beds being applied for on the due date for applications and that perception is reasonable. Suwannee noticed the intent to apply for 60 beds and applied for that many. Both Suwannee and Starke met all procedural requirements for consideration of their applications for nursing home beds. In determining the disposition of the 60 nursing home beds needed for Planning Area l within District III, it is noted that Suwannee and Columbia counties are contiguous. Columbia is east of Suwannee. While the main emphasis by these applicants is to serve the needs of residents within the two counties where the facilities would be located, given their contiguity there is a potential for either applicant to serve needs within both counties. Columbia county is the more populous county. However, in the two counties the age cohorts in the 65 and over group and 75 and over group are similar, especially in the 75 and over group. Occupancy rates in the existing nursing homes within the two counties are also similar. The J. Ralph Smith Health Center in Suwannee County has 107 existing beds and 54 beds approved. Those additional 54 beds were designated for residents of the Advent Christian Village exclusively; however, the residents of that village constitute part of the population base in Suwannee county. Therefore this limited utilization of that resource still benefits citizens within Suwannee county. Surrey Place in Suwannee county has 60 beds and the Suwannee Health Care Center has 120 beds with 60 more approved. The 60 additional beds may not be constructed in that the applicant failed to proceed to construction in the time contemplated by CON 3746 and may lose the beds. Columbia County has Tanglewood Care Center with 95 beds. It has Lake City Medical Center with 5 beds associated with a hospital. Palm Garden of Columbia has approval for 60 beds. On balance there would not appear to be an advantage to placing the 60 beds at issue in either Suwannee or Columbia counties when considering the population to be served, present occupancy rates for existing nursing bomes and geographic accessibility to the proposed nursing homes. Suwannee is a wholly owned subsidiary of Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. The parent corporation filed the application with the permission of Suwannee. The 60 bed nursing home facility is part of an overall project which includes the replacement of an existing 60 bed acute care hospital with a 30 bed acute care hospital. If the proposals are accepted the hospital and 60 bed nursing home would be located on a common parcel. HRS has granted CON 6179 to decertify 30 beds. The approved cost of the delicensure and establishment of the new hospital is $6,752,824. The nursing home component of this project is stated to cost $3,408,100 in the way of capital expenditures with an operating equity in the amount of $300,000. The overall health care delivery system contemplated in the hospital and nursing home project includes the replacement hospital, the new nursing home, an out patient diagnostic center, home health care, hospice and adult day care services. Suwannee has the financial backing of its parent corporation which owns a number of health care facilities including six hospitals, two health maintenance organizations and six other health related corporations. Both Suwannee and the parent corporation Santa Fe Health Care, Inc. are not for profit. The Santa Fe operations are in Florida and its hospital holdings include other rural hospitals in addition to Suwannee which is a rural hospital. Before filing the application for the 60 bed nursing home neither Suwannee nor the Santa Fe parent corporation had any involvement in long term health care delivery. Suwannee intends to serve the needs of Alzheimer patients and to provide services to persons needing subacute care. In its present hospital facility in Suwannee County it has 24 swing beds with which it serves patients needing subacute care and which beds are seen as an alternative to nursing home beds. That alternative has limited utility. Although swing beds may serve nursing home patients they are not an alternative for long term care in lieu of community nursing home beds. To the extent that Suwannee Hospital has tried to place patients in nursing homes needing a high level of skilled care, described as subacute care, it has experienced problems. Existing nursing homes in Suwannee County have not accepted the placement of those patients. It is unclear from the record what portion of subacute care needed in the service area will continue to be met in the hospital proper with the advent of delicensure of 30 beds. There was testimony to the affect that the hospital has the option to request swing beds in its remaining 30 bed hospital facility, but it has not been shown that the hospital will avail itself of that opportunity and through the use of the swing beds be able to render subacute care. The description by Suwannee of the subacute patients that it is contemplating serving through its nursing home are those who require a shorter stay in nursing facilities, who are said to have fragile medical condition and require intensive licensed nursing care. In the application, it states that the Medicare patients contemplated as being served by this prospective nursing home would be the principal users of the subacute care. There patients would have an average length of stay of 15 days with 12 patients per month being served. The Medicare per diem charge of $130 for the first year of operation is said to include the cost of care given to these patients who are said to be heavy users of subacute care. That per diem charge reflects ancillaries such as the various therapies as well. Having considered the explanation of this application, it is less than apparent what the difference would be between the subacute care services now being provided by the hospital in its swing beds and those contemplated by its nursing home application. In a similar vein, it is unclear what the distinction would be between the subacute care rendered in the proposed nursing home when contrasted with the subacute care being provided in swing beds that might be available in the 30 bed replacement hospital. If granted a certificate of need Suwannee is committed to serving AIDS patients. Suwannee intends to serve Medicaid patients and it projects a percentage of patient days attributable to Medicaid patients in the first two years of operation to approximate 73%. This is contrasted with experience statewide of 62%, within District III of 75% and within the planning area of 81%. Projected per diem rate for Medicaid reimbursement within the first year of operation is $68. The financial expert presented by Suwannee said that the applicant could charge as much as $10 to $12 more, making the Medicaid rate $78 to $80 per day. This increase contemplates raising the present caps on reimbursement. The record does not support increases in the caps of $10 to $12 in the relevant planning period. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay per diem rate at Suwannee reflects $97 as the charge and $80 as the charge for semiprivate room, private pay. This is as compared to $130 for Medicare per diem. Although it is unacceptable to charge more for Medicare than private pay, Schedule 12 within the application shows the inclusion of ancillaries for the Medicare patient and the exclusion of ancillaries for private pay. Under the circumstances it is difficult to tell whether the Medicare per diem charges exceed the private pay per diem charges as has been contended by Starke. The inclusion of the therapies as ancillary costs is shown on page 39 at Schedule 12 of the application of Suwannee. On Schedule 17 in the first operating year the therapies as ancillary costs are not broken out as individual items such as physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy separate and apart from routine services. Instead an aggregate figure is given. That precludes an understanding of what portion of the per diem charge for Medicare patients is attributable to those ancillary costs. The circumstance is made more bewildering in that the financial expert presented by Suwannee stated that the $130 per diem charge had application to residents who were receiving subacute care. What portion of the per diem charge for Medicare residents is attributable to the subacute care component is not revealed in the application. Neither, is it explained in the testimony. Notwithstanding the assurance of the Suwannee financial planner that the Medicare rate projected for the first year of operation is in keeping with the Hospital Cost Containment Board's data on the average rate structure, that comment and his other explanations failed to establish the reasonableness of that charge. This is especially true when considering the fact that the Medicaid charges, even accepting an adjusted rate of $80 per day, are also indicated at Schedule 12 as including therapies and are far less than the Medicare per diem. Schedule 17 shows the Medicaid without reference to the therapies as an aggregate item in the same fashion as described with the Medicare category of reimbursement. Further, evidence of the fact that private room, private pay, does not exceed the Medicare per diem charge is related at Schedule 12 where it describes the subacute private room, private pay patient as paying $150 and the semiprivate, room private pay as paying $130. Again, in the Suwannee application in the first year of operation for both Medicaid and Medicare therapies are said to be included in the basic charges of $68 and $130 respectively shown at Schedule 12 and carried forward in the aggregate on Schedule 17. From the explanations stated by the financial planner, the projected costs for therapies by those two categories of patients is not reflected in the ancillary cost centers for physical therapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy found at lines 11-13 of Schedule 18. Instead, they are reflected at line 39 under other costs centers in the amount of $80,900. Moreover the $80,900 is said to include subacute services as well as the therapies. Having considered Schedules 12, 17 and 18 for the first operating year, together with the other evidence presented in the course of the hearing, the estimate at line 39 of Schedule 18 of $80,900 is unreliable. The Suwannee project contemplates a facility of approximately 24,370 square feet. The construction cost estimate is $62.44 per square foot. The total project cost per bed is $56,802. That far exceeds the caps for the property cost component related to Medicaid residents which is presently $30,350 per bed. Put another way, that translates to a differential of $11.64 per patient day above present reimbursement levels for Medicaid residents. That differential cannot be made up by resort to payments for ancillary services for that category of resident. The shortfall attributable to the costs per bed differential in the application of $56,802 compared to $30,350 per bed plus ancillaries is not expected to be made up by resort to other revenue sources within this proposal either, nor can it be properly be. This is particularly true when approximately 70% of the patient days are expected to be provided by Medicaid residents. Even if Suwannee were able to obtain reimbursement for the per bed cost of $56,802, this is much more than the Starke cost per bed which is approximately $30,000 as built. The cap that has been mentioned is the one effective July 1, 1990. Nothing in the testimony would suggest that the caps would approach $56,802 within the planning horizon for this review cycle. In summary, the financial feasibility of the Suwannee proposal has not been established. While the parent corporation, Santa Fe Health Care, Inc., is strong financially and able to sustain Suwannee in its nursing home operation in the short term, even with expected losses, the losses will be extraordinary and the long term feasibility has not been demonstrated either. Simply stated, too much money is being expended to establish this facility and it may not be recouped by resort to the reimbursement scheme identified in the application. Under the circumstances, the nursing home is not perceived as a means of promoting the financial well being of the overall project constituted of the nursing home, relocated hospital and associated services. It is not accepted that the manner and quality of care proposed to be delivered by Suwannee is so superior that it justifies the inordinate expense in delivering the care. In other particulars Suwannee has shown that it meets all applicable criteria for granting it a certificate of need, but the overall costs are so exorbitant that they preclude financial success in the project. In addition, even if the project met the criteria its costs compared to the Starke proposal are so much more that the Suwannee proposal should be rejected in favor of the Starke proposal. It is not accepted that a hospital based nursing home is superior to a freestanding nursing home as urged by the presentation made by Suwannee. Starke had applied for a 120 bed nursing home, with a separate request explaining its proposal to construct a 60 bed nursing home. It is that latter proposal that fits the need in Planning Area I of District III. The total capital expenditure for that alternative proposal is $1,882,713. The cost per square foot is approximately $60 in the 22,500 square foot facility. The per bed costs is in the neighborhood of $30,000. In the first year of operation the private room, private pay is $89; the semiprivate room, private pay rate is $79; the Medicaid rate is $69.50 and the Medicare rate is $69.50. These rates do not include ancillary charges for therapies. The Starke proposal will include a unit for Alzheimer, subacute care, adult day care and respite care. Starke will provide 80% of its patient days for Medicaid residents and 10% of its patient days for Medicare residents. The Medicaid performance exceeds that of Suwannee. That rate is consistent with the experience which Starke has in the operation of its Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida, a 120 bed nursing home facility which has held a superior license rating over the three years preceding the application. Starke as a corporation would own both the Starke, Florida facility and the proposed Lake City, Florida facility. The principals in that corporation with 50% ownership are J. D. Griffis and George R. Grosse, Jr. The subacute care that is to be provided is in patient rooms which are directly adjacent to the nursing station. It is the intention of the applicant to build these rooms to allow support for medical equipment needed in the treatment of those residents. Although some criticism has been directed to the architectural design of the proposed nursing home facility, Starke has committed itself to meet all applicable codes. Under the circumstances it does not appear that this application presents significant problems associated with resident safety or inordinate costs in making necessary adjustments to comply with applicable codes. The Starke application was prepared by Jerry L. Keach, the then administrator for University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, operated by Covenant Care Corporation. By the comments found in the application it was contemplated that the Covenant Care group would manage the Starke facility in Lake City, Florida, which would do business as Lake City Care Center. No contract has been executed between Starke and Covenant Care Corporation to allow the latter entity to manage the Lake City facility assuming the grant of the certificate of need to that applicant. At hearing the principals for Starke indicated that Covenant Care together with other unnamed organizations would be considered as management for the nursing home in Lake City. Although this issue of management is unresolved, reservations about the project are overcome in recognition of the success of the Starke corporation in the operation of the Whispering Pines Care Center in Starke, Florida. That suffices as an indication that Starke is capable of installing appropriate personnel to operate the Lake City facility, and provide quality care. The assumptions concerning the various aspects of the proposals set forth in the Starke application are sufficiently explained in the course of the final hearing and those explanations are accepted. It is reasonable to expect that the nursing home could be constructed, staffed and operated in a manner consistent with the explanations found in the application and through testimony at hearing. A successful outcome is anticipated whether the Covenant Care Corporation is employed to operate the facility or not. The favorable impression of the Starke proposal is held notwithstanding the criticism directed to the financial feasibility by remarks offered by Suwannee. In particular the Suwannee Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence questioning the assumptions of the Starke applicant concerning income projections for the first two years have been taken into account. Whispering Pines Care Center presently offers care for Alzheimer patients and subacute services. Therefore problems are not anticipated in the provision of those services in the proposed facility. With due regard for the criticisms that have been directed to the financial ability of Starke to maintain its Whispering Pines Nursing Center and the proposed project in Lake City, Florida, it is found that the applicant has the ability to conduct those businesses. As with the matter of financial feasibility, Starke has satisfied all other applicable criteria for the grant of a certificate of need to construct the 60 bed nursing home.
Recommendation Based upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which requires all CONs granted to be consistent with the applications and in keeping with that intention: Grants CON 5987 to Inverness for the addition of 20 community nursing home beds to its existing facility upon condition that those beds be constituted of a minimum of 75.2% total patient days for Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5962 to Starke for construction of a nursing home in Columbia County, Florida, constituted of a minimum of 80% total patient days for Medicaid patients, that provides Alzheimer services, subacute care, day care and respite care; Grants CON 5910 to McCoy for the addition of 60 beds upon condition that 60% of the patient days be devoted to Medicaid patients; Grants CON 5905 to Regency for construction of a 120 nursing home facility with 62% of its patient dads being devoted to Medicaid patients, 2 beds dedicated to Alzheimer patients, provision of respite care and that the facility shall be a one-story design consisting of 43,000 gross square feet in size; and Denies the application for a 60 bed nursing home in Suwannee County made by Suwannee under CON Action No. 5912. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NOS. 90-0043 and 90-0045 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties: Inverness Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Suwannee Paragraphs 1 through 7 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 8 is contrary to facts found in that the Starke application can be advanced without a resort to an affiliation with Covenant Care Corporation. Paragraph 9 is accepted; however, those facts do not cause the rejection of the Starke proposal. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 12 is accepted as factually correct; however, this is not crucial in determining the outcome of this case. Concerning Paragraph 13, while the record reveals that Mr. Keach was responsible at a time moratorium had been placed on admissions into University Nursing Care Center in Gainesville, Florida, the record was not detailed enough to ascertain what influence that might have on his ability to act as an administrator at the Starke facility proposed in this instance or his competence in preparing the application. The representations found in Paragraph 14 do not preclude the consideration of the Starke application. Concerning Paragraph 15, the first sentence is rejected as fact. The second and third sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 16, those items which are mentioned did not cause the rejection of the Starke application in that Starke is committed to abide by all applicable codes to insure control over the patients. Paragraphs 17 through 21 are contrary to facts found. Concerning Paragraphs 22-24, the Starke proposal is found to be financially feasible. Paragraph 25-27 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 28, notwithstanding economies of scale they will not overcome the inherent extravagance in the costs associated with bringing the Suwannee project on line. Concerning Paragraph 29, while diversification for rural hospitals is desirable, the present attempt by Suwannee is unacceptable. Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 31 see comment on Paragraph 29. Paragraph 32 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 33 is accepted; however, the principal service area would appear to be Suwannee County. The existence of service over to Hamilton, Madison, Lafayette and Columbia Counties does not change the perception of this case. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 35 is contrary to facts found as are Paragraphs 36 and 37. Concerning Paragraph 38, the affiliation of Suwannee with the Santa Fe Health Care system does not overcome the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraphs 39 and 40 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 41 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 42 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 43 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 46 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 47-55 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 56 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 57-60 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 61 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 62 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 63 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 64 is subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 65, notwithstanding these observations they do not justify the rate structure or per diem charges set out in the Suwannee application. Paragraph 66 is subordinate to facts found as are the first two sentences of Paragraph 67. The last sentence to Paragraph 67 is rejected. Paragraphs 68 and 69 are contrary to facts found. The first sentence of Paragraph 70 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not relevant. Paragraphs 71 through the first sentence of Paragraph 73 is contrary to facts found. Concerning the last sentence of Paragraph 73, Starke is found to be financially feasible and Suwannee is not. Paragraph 74 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 75 and 76 have been taken into account in deciding that there are no particular advantages to placing the 60 beds in Columbia County as opposed to Suwannee County. Paragraph 77 in all sentences save the last is accepted. The last sentence is contrary to facts found in that subacute care will be rendered in the Starke facility. Paragraphs 78 through 80 are contrary to facts found. Paragraph 81 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 82 is accepted in the premise, but use of Suwannee as the facility to serve this population is rejected based upon the lack of financial feasibility. Paragraph 83 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the subacute patients would not be best placed with Suwannee. Paragraph 84 and 85 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 86 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 1-5 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning that latter sentence it is clear that Suwannee would intend to build the nursing home facility together with the hospital or exclusive of the hospital project. Paragraphs 6-8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 9 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 is accepted and it is acknowledged that the applicants can approximate that average. Paragraphs 11 and 12 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 13 Suwannee did establish its percentage of commitment to Medicaid through proof at hearing. Paragraphs 14 through 23 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is contrary to facts found in that Starke offers no greater enhancement than Suwannee in terms of geographic accessibility and is not really a competitor in this criterion with McCoy. Paragraphs 25 through 27 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 28 is contrary to facts found in that Suwannee did identify the programs that it intends to offer. Paragraphs 29 through 36 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 37 in the first sentence is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 39 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 40 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 41 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion that there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 42 is rejected. Paragraph 43 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 44 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 45 through 52 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 53 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 54 is subordinate to facts found with the exception that the reason that the Suwannee project is not found to be financially feasible does not include reference to a higher charge for Medicare patients than the charge to private pay patients. Paragraphs 55 through 60 with the exception of the last sentence in Paragraph 60 are subordinate to facts found. The nursing home is intended to be built whether the replacement hospital is built or not. Paragraphs 61 through 65 are subordinate to facts found. Starke Paragraphs 1 through 5 with the exception of the latter two sentences in Paragraph 5 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning the next to the last sentence, it was made clear that the intentions on the part of Suwannee were to build the nursing home. The last sentence to the extent that it is intended to suggest that this applicant is incapable of offering long term care services is rejected. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 9 through 11 are subordinate to facts found. Concerning Paragraph 12 to the extent that it suggests that Suwannee is not willing to provide services to Medicaid recipients, it is rejected. Paragraphs 13 through 21 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is contrary to facts found in that Starke is not seen as enhancing geographic accessibility to a greater extent than Suwannee its true competitor. Paragraphs 23 and 24 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found ih that Suwannee has identified its special programs. Paragraphs 26 through 33 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 34 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 35 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 36 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Concerning Paragraph 37 while it is agreed that swing beds are skilled level of nursing home care they do not constitute reasonable alternatives to long term care. Paragraph 38 is subordinate to facts found in the first sentence. The second sentence in its suggestion than there is no significance to the lack of provision of these types of services under subacute care in area nursing homes is rejected. Paragraph 39 is rejected. Paragraphs 40 and 41 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 42 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 43 through 50 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 51 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 52 is subordinate to facts found except as it suggests that the difference in rate between Medicaid patients and private pay patients in the Suwannee proposal forms the basis for the criticism that the Suwannee project is not financially sound. Paragraphs 53 through the first two sentence of Paragraph 59 are subordinate to facts found. Related to the latter sentences in Paragraph 59 it is clear that the schematic pertains to the basic design of the Suwannee facility whether attached to a new hospital or free standing. Paragraphs 60 through 64 are subordinate to facts found. McCoy Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 4 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 5 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 6 through 83 are subordinate to facts found. Regency Paragraph 1 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 5 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Department Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Elizabeth McArthur, Esquire Jeffrey Frehn, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle and Thomas 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez and Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahasee, FL 32314-6507 Leslie Mendelson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Center Tallahassee, FL 32308 James C. Hauser, Esquire F. Phillip Blank, Esquire R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Julie Gallagher, Esquire F. Philip Blank, P.A. 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Grafton B. Wilson, II, Esquire 711 North 23rd Avenue, Suite 4 Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, FL 32602 R. Bruce McKibben, Esquire Dempsey and Goldsmith, P.A. 307 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301
Findings Of Fact The semi-annual census report by DHRS for District. III dated December 1, 1984, (Exhibit 23) indicated a need for 615 additional nursing home beds for the January 1985 review cycle. Although this report cautioned that changes in reporting and pending litigation or appeals could change the count of approved beds, nevertheless, most of the applicants for beds in the January 1985 batching cycle relied on this report as the basis for their applications. At the time this report was submitted, District III was subdivided into seven sub districts, and the need for each sub district was separately listed. Prior to the completion of the review of the applications in the January 1985 batching cycle, some 500 nursing home beds in District III were allocated to applicants in earlier batching cycles whose applications had been denied for lack of need, and who were in the process of appealing those denials. Many of these applications had been updated and those beds were issued by DHRS pursuant to its then-current policy of issuing beds on a first come-first served basis. As a result, only some beds were allocated to those applicants in the January 1985 batching cycle before the pool of available beds was depleted. Furthermore, rule changes became effective before the January 1985 batching cycle applications were reviewed which eliminated sub districts in District III. Largely because of the allocation of beds to applicants in earlier batching cycles, but also due to population based changes in District III, the bed need methodology, using data current at the time of the hearing and computing need to January 1988, shows there will be an excess of 342 nursing home beds in District III in 1988. (Exhibit 33) Eustis Limited Partnership The initial application of Eustis was for 8 additional beds which involved construction costs. The amended application which was considered in this hearing is for three (3) beds with costs allocated only for the equipment and furniture needed to add a bed to three existing rooms. As amended, Eustis' application is very similar to the application of Oakwood Nursing Center who was granted a CON for the addition of three (3) beds without construction costs. At the time Oakwood's CON was granted, DHRS was in the process of granting CONs for 103 beds. At the time Eustis submitted its application, all of the 615 beds initially available had been dispensed and there was no need for additional beds. At this hearing, Eustis produced no evidence to show a need for the three (3) beds for which Eustis applied. The evidence submitted by Eustis primarily showed that by simply adding a bed to three existing rooms, the cost per bed added was far less than would be the cost of constructing new facilities. Inverness Convalescent Center (ICC) ICC proposes to construct and operate a 120-bed nursing home in Citrus County at a cost of $3,400,000. (Exhibit 15) Citrus County has four licensed nursing homes with a total of 430 beds and an average occupancy rate of less than 90% during the last reported six-month period. (Exhibit 17)- During the last quarter of 1985, the occupancy rate in Citrus County nursing homes was the lowest of the planning areas in District III, and in the first quarter of 1986, it was second lowest. ICC contends the need formula doesn't apply to their application because they propose to serve special needs of the elderly, such as institutionalized patients, head trauma patients, etc. However, the only testimony presented indicating a need in Citrus County for such special services came from ICC owners and employees who live in New Jersey. ICC further contends that since there are less than 27 nursing home beds in Citrus County per 1,000 residents over age 65, that an additional nursing home is needed in Citrus County. However, the 27-beds per 1,000 population is but one factor considered in determining need for nursing home beds. In short, ICC presented no evidence to show that need exists in Citrus County for the proposed facility. Beverly Enterprises Beverly's application is for a CON to add 60 beds to an existing 120-bed nursing home in Live Oak, Suwannee County, Florida, at Suwannee Health Care Center. This facility was opened in 1983 and reached full capacity in seven to nine months. There are two nursing homes in Suwannee County; Suwannee Health Care Center, (HCC) and Advent Christian Village, Dowling Park (ACV). The latter is a church owned retirementc ~B community of 550 residents which provides a continuum of care on five levels. Although Advent Christian is not licensed as a life care community, it gives priority of admission to its 107 licensed nursing home beds to residents of the life care community. As a result, there are few vacancies available for persons living outside the retirement community. Advent - Christian has a waiting list of 32 on the active waiting list and ~20 on an inactive waiting list. People on waiting lists are told the wait is from one to five years for admission. Suwannee HCC has an occupancy rate approaching 100% and a waiting list of approximately 50. As a result, the vast majority of Suwannee County residents needing nursing home care are sent to a nursing home outside Suwannee County, usually in Gainesville, some 65 miles from Live Oak. The planning area in which Suwannee County is located, formerly sub district 1 in District III, has five nursing homes with an average occupancy rate for the last three months of 1985 and the first three months of 1986, ranging from 96.91% to 99.75%. During the first three months of 1986, the occupancy rate of three of these nursing homes was greater than 99%' one as 98.7% and the lowest, Advent Christian, was 96.91% (Exhibit 17). The patient mix at Suwannee ACC is over 80% Medicaid and approximately one-third black. The black population is about 30% of the total population in Suwannee County. Suwannee HCC has had several superior ratings (Exhibits 9, 10), takes patients in order on the waiting list regardless of whether they are Medicaid or private pay, and has a very good reputation in the area for service. DHRS personnel who approve Medicaid placement of patients, hospital employees who have the duty of placing patients in nursing homes, nursing home personnel, and private citizens with relatives in nursing homes, all confirmed the critical access problems of Suwannee County residents for local nursing home placement. Live Oak residents, for example, who need placement in a nursing home are usually sent outside Suwannee County, have their names added to waiting lists at nursing homes in Live Oak, and nursing homes closer to Live Oak than the nursing home in which they are placed, and move to the closer nursing home when a vacancy occurs. As a result, most of the vacancies at Suwannee HCC are filled by patients who were, first transferred outside Suwannee County for nursing home placement, and got on the waiting list at Suwannee HCC. There are very few patients from Suwannee County who are initially placed in a Suwannee County nursing home. Southern Medical Associates (SMA) SMA proposes to construct and operate a free standing, 60-bed, skilled nursing home in Palatka, Putnam County, Florida, at a cost of $1,692,400. (Exhibit 19) When SMA's application was submitted the computation of bed need in Suwannee County under the sub district rule in effect when the application was submitted, showed 30 beds needed in Putnam County. This calculation included 36 beds earlier approved but not yet licensed. At the time of this hearing those approved 36 beds had been revoked by reason of not beginning construction in a timely fashion. The medical consultant who reviewed these applications and prepared most of the State Agency Action reports, (Exhibit 30) initially recommended that SMA'S application be granted. The two existing nursing homes in Putnam County have an occupancy rate in excess of 98 percent for the latest reported 3 month period. (Exhibit 17) 85 to 90 percent of these patients are Medicaid patients. The one nursing home in Palatka, Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, is a 65-bed nursing home with an occupancy rate in excess of 99 percent for the past year, and on the date of hearing had 18 people on the waiting list for a bed. The turnover in this nursing home is about 50 percent each year, with most vacancies resulting from the death of a patient. Two HRS employees whose job it is to determine eligibility of residents of Putnam County for Medicaid reimbursement for nursing home care, testified that they very, seldom see a patient go to Putnam Memorial Nursing Home, that over half of the patients they qualify for eligibility are sent out of the county, and of those placed in the county, almost all are placed at Lakewood Nursing Home which is located 18 miles from Palatka. The only hospital in Putnam County discharges 5 to 6 patients per month who need additional nursing care after discharge. Most of these patients are sent to nursing homes in St. Augustine, Florida, a few are sent to Lakewood, but for very few is a bed available in Palatka.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for examination as a nursing home administrator.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, posthearing memoranda, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner, Mary Harrison, filed an application to sit for the examination as a nursing home administrator on approximately May 28, 1981, based on her belief that she satisfied the prerequisite for examination as required by Rule Chapter 21Z-11.01, Florida Administrative Code. In a cover letter with her application dated May 28, 1981, Petitioner asserted her position that she satisfied the above requirements by stating that she was over 18 years of age; was a high school graduate; had completed two (2) years of college level studies which prepared her for health administration, in that she held a master's degree in public administration (a program designed for administration in the field of human services with a specialty in human resource management) ; was of good moral character and possessed four (4) years experience in nursing home and two and one half (2 1/2) years experience at Hospice in a management/administrative capacity. 3/ Petitioner's application was preliminarily denied by letter dated July 6, 1981, from the Board on the grounds that Petitioner's degree in public administration was not in the field of health care administration as required by Rule 21Z-11.07, Florida Administrative Code, and additionally, that Petitioner's experience "did not appear to demonstrate that for four (4) years (she) had been in a position of control and administration as needed to fulfill the requirements of Rule 21Z-11.09, Florida Administrative Code Petitioner attended a subsequent Board meeting where her application was considered on July 24, 1981, and she was afforded an opportunity to present a more detailed description of her executive and management responsibilities for its (the Board's) consideration. The Board again denied Petitioner's application, which denial was memorialized in a letter dated July 27, 1981, and cited, as basis for the denial, that Petitioner failed to show that her responsibilities and experience involved the total health services as required by Rule 21Z-11.09, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner was advised, in that letter, that she may request a hearing which resulted in the instant proceeding before the Division by a letter of transferal from the Board on August 27, 1981. During the four (4) year period from 1976 through 1980, Petitioner was employed as the Director of Social Services at the Boca Raton Convalescent Center, Boca Raton, Florida. The Center is a nursing home. Petitioner's responsibilities included coordination of admissions and discharges, individual and family counseling, development of social work internship programs with the Florida Atlantic University School of Social Welfare and the training and supervision of social work interns who were involved in the Reality Orientation Program. Petitioner's supervision only included social workers and interns in her department and she was not responsible for employees in other departments of the facility. Petitioner participated in what has been described as a team- management system at the Center. Petitioner's involvement in that system included discussions of various courses of action in the interviewing of employees by a search committee which consists of a group of department heads and the Center's administrator. Petitioner did not sign contracts or purchase orders for any services or supplies; she did not sign checks or make any decisions affecting the employment of the staff at the Center such as hiring, firing, layoff, recall suspension or the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. The accounting decisions for the Center were made at a regional office and the Petitioner's involvement in the accounting decisions consisted primarily of reguesting certain items when a budget proposal was made to the regional office and the placing of certain numbers on forms, which had to conform within the framework of the finalized budget as prepared by the Center's regional office. During the above four (4) year period, Petitioner served as Acting Administrator for the Center for one weekend of every five or six weeks where she was authorized to exercise managerial authority temporarily and primarily in cases of emergencies. In this regard, evidence reveals that the Administrator was, even in these instances, still responsible for the exercise of emergency administrative authority by Petitioner while she served as the Acting Administrator. (Testimony of Petitioner and witnesses Melican, Cohen and Lane.) To performing her regular duties as nursing home administrator at the Center, Petitioner exercised the management skills and the executive duties of planning, directing, staffing, organizing and controlling only the social services department. Since early 1980 to present, Petitioner has served as a member of the Board of Directors and a founder of the Florida State Hospice Organization. During her affiliation with the Hospice of Boca Raton, Petitioner performed executive functions for two (2) years at twenty (20) hours per week and one (1) year at thirty-five (35) hours per week. During her affiliation with the Hospice, Petitioner was responsible for and has provided input for the articulation of rules and regulations governing Hospice facilities statewide. Petitioner has also served on resource committees affiliated and/or approved by Respondent for the development of standards to provide and assure quality Hospice care statewide. In the performance of her duties in the Hospice of Boca Raton, Petitioner has exercised management skills and executive duties which include planning, directing, staffing, controlling and organizing that facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Home Administrators, deny petitioner's application to sit for the licensing examination in nursing home administration. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1982.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED That Manor Care be issued a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Palm Bay Care Center be awarded a CON for the construction of a 60 bed nursing home; Forum Group be awarded a CON for a 40 bed nursing home and Courtenay Springs be awarded a CON for 36 nursing home beds. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-99675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Laramore, Esquire Kenneth Hoffman, Esquire 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas B. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 633 Orlando, Florida 32802 John Grout, Esquire Post Office Box 180 Orlando, Florida 32802 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Suite 100 Perkins House 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan G. Tuttle, Esquire 402 South Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Suite B 200 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John F. Gilroy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties herein. 1-13 Accepted. 14 & 15 Accepted. 16-18 Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. 19-23 Accepted. 24 Accepted. 25-29 Accepted. 30 & 31 Accepted. 32 Irrelevant. 33-34 Accepted. 35-37 Accepted. 38-46 Accepted. 47 & 48 Accepted. 49 & 50 Accepted. 51 Discussion, not Finding of Fact. 52-56 Accepted. Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted to the fact that there were no sheltered beds in existence. Irrelevant. 61-63 Accepted but not of substantial positive value. 64 & 65 Accepted. Opinion not Finding of Fact. Accepted. 68-75 Accepted. 76-80 Irrelevant based on part operation and evidence shows facility is to be sold. 81-85 Irrelevant - see next 86-90 Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a Finding of Fact. 91 Not a Finding of Fact. 92-94 Accepted. 95 Irrelevant as to local district. 96-103 Accepted. 104-105 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman supported. Accepted as to what Dr. Hoffman indicated. 108-110 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact. 114-118 Accepted. 119&120 Not a Finding of Fact. 121&122 Accepted. 123 Accepted as to the one facility currently operated. 124-127 Accepted. Speculation insufficient to support a Finding of Fact. Argument, not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 131-133 Accepted. 134 Not a Finding of Fact. 135-137 Accepted. 138 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 139-147 Accepted. 148&149 Not a Finding of Fact. 150-164 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony, not a Finding of Fact. Irrelevant. 167-176 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence Rejected as a summary of testimony. Accepted. 180&181 Accepted. 182 Irrelevant. 183&184 Accepted. 185 Rejected as a conclusion. 186&187 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. As to Manor Care 1 Accepted. 2&3 Rejected as not a part of the case. 4 Accepted. 5-7 Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 10-11 Accepted. 12 Accepted. 13-19 Accepted. 20-22 Accepted. As to Forum 1-13 Accepted. 14-16 Accepted. 17-22 Accepted. 23&24 Accepted. 25-27 Accepted. 28-31 Accepted. 32 Accepted. 33-35 Accepted. 36 Rejected as speculation. 37-42 Accepted. 43 Accepted. 44-47 Accepted. 48&49 Accepted. 50-55 Accepted. Rejected as a conclusion not consistent with the evidence. Accepted. 58&59 Accepted. 60-64 Accepted. 65-69 Accepted. 70&71 Irrelevant. 72&73 Accepted. 74-76 Accepted. Accepted as to the first sentence. Second sentence is not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. As to PBCC 1&2 Accepted. 3 Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. 46 Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted. 10-12 Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence except for the first sentence which is accepted. Rejected. 15-20 Accepted. 21-27 Accepted. 28 Rejected as an overstatement and not supported by the evidence. 29&30 Accepted. 31 Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 32-38 Accepted. 39-43 Accepted. 44-50 Accepted. 51-57 Accepted. Accepted except for the first sentence which is unsupported by credible evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected. Accepted. As to Courtenay This party failed to number or otherwise identify its Findings of Fact individually. Therefore, no specific ruling as to each Finding of Fact is hereby made. In light of the ultimate recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the party's CON be approved, no prejudice to this party can be said to have occurred. As to DHRS 1-4 Accepted 5 Summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. 6-1 Is an argument of the party's position, not a Finding of Fact. 12-14 Rejected as matters not a part of the party's position at hearing. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 19-22 Accepted. Rejected as a summary of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 25-28 Accepted. 29-31 Accepted.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 15, 1986, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent to construct a 60 bed community nursing home with a 45 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Highlands County, Florida. This application was identified as CON 4700. After preliminary review, Respondent denied this application on or about December 23, 1986, and Petitioner timely filed its petition for formal administrative hearing. Highlands County is in Respondent's Service District VI, Subdistrict IV. The parties stipulated that there was a net bed need in the July, 1989 planning horizon for Highlands County of an additional 28 community nursing home beds, based upon the bed need calculation set forth in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. It was further stipulated by the parties that Petitioner's original application met all statutory and rule criteria for the issuance of a CON, but for the issue of need. Since the parties did stipulate to a need for 28 community nursing home beds, Petitioner sought, at hearing, to offer evidence in support of only an "identifiable portion" of its original application. Thus, Petitioner offered no evidence in support of the application it filed with Respondent, and which was preliminarily denied on December 23, 1986. Rather, Petitioner sought consideration and approval of either 28 nursing home beds with 32 ACLF beds, or 30 nursing home beds with 30 ACLF beds. Since the stipulation of the parties could not cover the financial feasibility of either alternative because they were presented for the first time at hearing, Petitioner offered evidence to establish the financial feasibility of these alternatives. Based upon the testimony of Herbert E. Straughn, it is found that Respondent does not normally approve nursing home CON applications for less than 60 nursing home beds. However, Respondent has approved a CON application for 30 nursing home beds in association with 30 ACLF beds or some other similar service when the need for 30 nursing home beds was shown to exist. Respondent has also approved a CON for less than 30 nursing home beds in connection with an existing 60 bed facility when the stipulated need did not reach 30. In this case, Petitioner's original application was for 60 community nursing home and 45 ACLF beds, and it was at hearing that Petitioner sought to down-size its application to meet the stipulated need of 28 nursing home beds. There are no accessibility problems with regard to special programs or services, or any other problems of accessibility, in District VI, Subdistrict IV. Petitioner's request for partial consideration and approval of its application, which was presented at hearing, would not introduce any new services or construction not originally contemplated in its application, although the size of the project and number of beds sought would be reduced. In its original application, Petitioner proposed a nursing home with two 30-bed units, and now seeks approval for only one 28 or 30-bed unit. From a health planning standpoint, nursing home bed units usually occur in multiples of 60 due to staffing and equipment considerations. No evidence was offered to show why the Respondent should deviate from its usual practice in this case, other than the fact that a need for only 28 beds exists. At hearing, Petitioner introduced revised pro formas for 28 and 30 nursing home beds, associated with 32 and 30 ACLF beds, respectively. These revised pro formas were based on the same ratios of patients by payor class as in the original pro forma. The equity to loan ratios in the revised pro formas to finance the project remained the same as in the original application. The revised pro formas combine revenue and expenses for nursing home and ACLF beds. However, if revenue and expenses for nursing home beds is segregated from ACLF beds, it is found that a 30 bed nursing home facility would not be financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990, and a 28 bed nursing home facility would be even less financially feasible than a 30 bed facility. When revenues and expenses for the ACLF component of the project are considered along with nursing home bed income and expenses, the project shows only a marginal profit in the second year of operation with the 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative. It is barely break-even in the second year under the 28 nursing home bed-32 ACLF bed alternative. Thus, under either alternative, the project is not financially feasible in 1989, and the nursing home component of this project, standing alone under either alternative presented at hearing, is not financially feasible in either 1989 or 1990. The 30 nursing home bed-30 ACLF bed alternative is more financially feasible than the 28-32 alternative since the 28-32 alternative is barely break even in the second year of operation. Specifically, under the 28-32 alternative, pretax income of less than $9000 is projected in the second year of operation with total revenues of approximately $1.321 million and total expenses of approximately $1.312 million.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for CON 4700. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0667 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 9. 8-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rejected as simply a statement of position and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 13-16 Rejected as conclusions of law and not proposed findings of fact; this legal argument has been considered in the preparation of conclusions of law contained in this Recommended Order. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 8, 9, 10. However the last sentence in the proposed finding of fact is rejected as unclear. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although from a health planning viewpoint a 30 nursing home bed unit is more functional and cost effective than a 28; it is also more financially feasible in this case. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11, and otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence, although adopted in part in Findings of Fact 9, 11. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. 2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5 Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 6 Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. 7 Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 8-9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Adams, Esquire 215 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Department hereby adopts the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer but with the significant modification set out and explained in PDCF's Exception (1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department issue to petitioner Holmes Health Care, Inc., a Certificate of Need for 60 additional community nursing home beds in an addition, to be constructed, to its 60-bed facility now under construction, with permission to use the existing Bonifay Nursing Home facility under the CON until the 60-bed addition is constructed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of June, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Procedural. 1. Meridian, National, HBA and ten other applicants filed certificate of need applications with the Department in the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle of the Department for Subdistrict 4 of District This area includes Flagler and Volusia Counties, Florida. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed a letter of intent with the Department and the District 4 Local Health Council within the time required for the filing of letters of intent for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. Each of the applicants involved in these cases filed their certificate of need applications within the time required for the filing of certificate of need applications for the October, 1987, nursing home bed certificate of need review cycle. The applications were deemed complete by the Department. The Department comparatively reviewed the applications of the applicants involved in these cases and those of ten other applicants. Based upon this review the Department issued a State Agency Action Report for the October, 1987, nursing home bed review cycle (hereinafter referred to as the "SAAR") on February 18, 1988. The SAAR was published by the Department in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 4, 1988. In the SAAR the Department proposed to approve the certificate of need application filed by HBA and to deny all other applications. Ten of the applicants whose certificate of need applications were denied by the Department filed Petitions pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, challenging the Department's proposed action. All of the Petitioners except the two Petitioners in these cases and HCR withdrew their Petitions prior to the formal hearing of these cases. HCR participated in the formal hearing of these cases but withdrew its Petition prior to the issuance of this Recommended Order. The Parties. The Department. The Department is the agency responsible for reviewing certificate of need applications for nursing home beds to be located in Flagler and Volusia Counties. Meridian. Meridian, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Towson, Maryland. The stock of Meridian, Inc., is owned by five individuals. Volusia Meridian Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "Partnership") is a Maryland limited partnership authorized to conduct business in Florida. Meridian, Inc., is the Partnership's general partner. The Partnership owns a nursing home in Ormond Beach, Florida. The Ormond Beach nursing home is leased to Meridian Nursing Centers, Inc. For the past twenty years, Meridian has owned, operated, developed and managed long-term health care facilities, retirement communities and other health care services for the elderly. Meridian owns and operates thirty-three facilities, in five States. These facilities have approximately 4,800 beds. In Florida, Meridian owns nursing homes in Lakeland, Plantation and Ormond Beach. As of the date of the formal hearing, Meridian had two other facilities under construction in Florida: one located in Longwood, Florida; and the other located in Melbourne, Florida. National. National is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership, authorized to conduct business in Florida. National's principal offices are located in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. National was created in 1971 with the purchase of fourteen existing nursing homes located in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia. National now operates seventy nursing homes and health care centers in ten different States. Twenty-two of these homes and health care centers are managed, but not owned, by National. National also operates four retirement complexes, eighteen home health agencies and seven to ten specialized Alzheimer's units. In Florida, National owns two health care centers and manages eighteen centers owned by other companies. None of these facilities are located in Flagler or Volusia Counties. HBA. HBA is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of developing, constructing and operating nursing homes. The principals of HBA have owned and operated nursing homes for approximately twenty years and in Florida for approximately fifteen years. HBA's corporate headquarters are located in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. HBA owns or operates twenty-four nursing homes located in Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. In Florida, HBA owns or operates six nursing homes. They are located in New Smyrna Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Plantation, Tamarac and Miami. The New Smyrna Beach nursing home, Ocean View Nursing Home (hereinafter referred to as "Ocean View"), is located in southern Volusia County. The Proposals. Meridian's Proposal. Meridian's Ormond Beach nursing home is located in northeast Volusia County. This facility consist of 60 nursing home beds. It began operation in November, 1987. In this proceeding, Meridian is seeking approval of the addition to its Ormond Beach nursing home of an additional 60 nursing home beds. Meridian is proposing the construction of a 14,531 square foot (329 square feet per bed) addition to its existing Ormond Beach nursing home. The total size of the Ormond Beach facility will be 39,000 gross square feet if Meridian's proposal is approved. The total proposed cost of Meridian's project is $1,247,800.00. The total project cost of the resulting 120-bed Ormond Beach facility will be $4,262,361.00. National's Proposal. In this proceeding, National is seeking approval of a certificate of need authorizing the construction and operation of an 80-bed nursing home to be located in the Palm Coast area of Flagler County, Florida. The exact location of the facility has not been identified by National. National is proposing the construction of a facility consisting of approximately 44,183 gross square feet (552 square feet per bed). The total proposed cost of National's project is $3,786,846.00. HBA'S Proposal. HBA currently owns and operates Ocean View. Ocean View is located in southeast Volusia County. Ocean View currently is licensed to operate 179 nursing home beds. In this proceeding, HBA is seeking approval of the addition to Ocean View of 60 nursing home beds. HBA is proposing the construction of an 18,000 gross square foot (263 square feet per bed) addition to Ocean View. The total size of Ocean View will be 63,000 gross square feet if HBA's proposal is approved. The total proposed cost of HBA's project is Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Numeric Need. Numeric need for additional nursing home beds is determined pursuant to the need methodology provided in Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Need Methodology"). The Department determines the need for additional nursing home beds by applying the Need Methodology for "planning horizons" three years into the future from the certificate of need batching cycles. For the batching cycle involved in these cases, the Department published pursuant to Rule 10-5.008(2), Florida Administrative Code, the net number of additional nursing home beds, the "fixed need pool," in the Florida Administrative Weekly, for the first time. In these cases, the Need Methodology must be applied to determine the fixed need pool for the July, 1990, planning horizon for Flagler and Volusia Counties. These Counties make up Subdistrict 4 of the Department's District 4. Initially the Department determined that the fixed need pool involved in these cases was zero. Pursuant to Department policy, the Department published a corrected fixed need pool during the grace period of Rule 10- 5.008(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, on September 18, 1987. Based upon the corrected fixed need pool, the Department determined that there was a need for 80 additional nursing home beds for Subdistrict 4 of District 4. No point of entry was provided by the Department for challenging this fixed need pool. The Department's calculation of a fixed need pool of 80 nursing home beds was based upon a misapplication of the Need Methodology by the Department. Based upon a proper application of the Need Methodology there is a need for 68 additional nursing home beds for the planning horizon at issue in these cases. The applicants involved in these cases filed their applications in reliance upon the Department's published fixed-need pool of 80 additional nursing home beds. The proper components of the Need Methodology for determining the gross number of nursing home beds needed for District 4 in July, 1990, are as follows: The projected population age 65-74 in District 4 for July, 1990, is 125,990 (POPA); The projected population age 75 and older in District 4 for July, 1990, is 91,109 (POPB); The population age 65-74 in District 4 in July, 1987, was 113,083 (POPC); The population age 75 and older in District 4 in July, 1987, was 77,867 (POPD); The number of licensed beds in District 4 as of July 1, 1987, was 6,005 (LB); The estimated bed rate for the population aged 65-74 of District 4 is 0.01034836 (BA); The estimated bed rate for the population aged 75 and older of District 4 is 0.06209018 (BB); and The total number of nursing home beds needed for District 4 in July, 1990, is 6,961 beds (A). The proper components of the Need Methodology for allocating the gross number of nursing home beds needed for District 4 in July, 1990, to Subdistrict 4 are as follows: The number of licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 as of July 1, 1987, was 2,290 beds (LBD); The number of licensed beds in District 4 as of July 1, 1987, was 6,005 beds (LB); The occupancy rate of Subdistrict 4 was 85.83% (OR); and The gross number of nursing home beds allocated to Subdistrict 4 is 2,532 beds (SA). Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.g., Florida Administrative Code, provides the following with regard to determining the number of licensed nursing home beds to be taken into account in calculating gross bed need for the batching cycle involved in these cases: [B]ed rates established prior to the second batching cycle letter of intent deadline shall be calculated on the number of licensed community nursing ads and the population projections as of July 1... Once the gross number of nursing home beds needed in Subdistrict 4 for July, 1990, is determined, the net number of beds needed is determined by subtracting the total number of licensed beds and 90 percent of approved beds in the Subdistrict from the gross number of beds needed. Rule 10-5.011(1)(k)2.i., Florida Administrative Code, provides the manner in which net bed need is to be determined. In particular, this Rule provides the following: The number of approved and licensed nursing home beds for the second batching cycle in 1987 shall be based on the number of approved and licensed beds as of August 1, 1987; ... The number of licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 as of August 1, 1987, was 2,410 beds. The number of approved licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 as of August 1, 1987, was 60 beds. The increase in licensed beds in Subdistrict 4 from 2,290 beds as of July 1, 1987, to 2,410 beds as of August 1, 1987, was caused by the licensing of the approved 120-bed Indigo Manor nursing home owned by Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America on July 21, 1987. It is not inconsistent for the Department to use the number of licensed nursing home beds as of July 1 for purposes of determining gross bed need and August 1 for calculating net bed need. The use of these dates by the Department is consistent with good health planning and the requirements of the Need Methodology. The State Health Plan. The Florida State Health Plan contains the general goals of fostering cost containment and developing an adequate supply of accessible and appropriately utilized long-term care health services. Each of the applicants will increase the accessibility of nursing home beds and are proposing appropriate utilization of health services. HBA's proposal will enhance the accessibility of nursing home beds in southeast Volusia County. The District Health Plan. The 1987 update to the 1986 district health plan for Subdistrict 4 of the Department's District 4, contains recommendations to be considered in determining community nursing home care bed need. These recommendations, and their application, are as follows: If the state determines that Subdistrict 4 is eligible for additional beds, these beds should be awarded to the Flagler Beach/Palm Coast area of Flagler County if the occupancy rate of Meadowbrook Manor meets or exceeds 85 percent occupancy at the time of CON decision and if it could be shown that the level of occupancy is likely to continue. The average occupancy rate for Meadowbrook Manor for the period of January 1, 1987, through June 30, 1987, was 58 percent. Meadowbrook has never achieved an 85 percent occupancy rate as of the date of the formal hearing of these cases. At the time of the "CON decision" in these cases, Meadowbrook had not achieved an 85 percent occupancy. This recommendation, therefore, does not apply. If a high rate of occupancy at Meadowbrook Manor in Flagler County does not materialize and if the occupancy rate at Ocean View Nursing Home in southeast Volusia County continues at 85 percent or higher and it could be verified that it will remain at a high rate, then 60 nursing home beds should be awarded in the New Smyrna Beach/Edgewater area of southeast Volusia County. The CON applicant must be willing to accept 50 percent Medicaid patients. The remaining portion should be awarded in West Volusia County. The average monthly occupancy of Ocean View for the period of January 1, 1987, through June 30, 1987, was 86 percent. Since September, 1987, the occupancy rate at Ocean View has been 94 percent or higher. This high rate of occupancy should continue. HBA proposes to accept 50 percent Medicaid patients and proposes to add its sought after nursing home beds to the New Smyrna Beach/Edgewater area of southeast Volusia County. HBA is the only applicant that meets this recommendation. If the conditions in Nos. 1[a] and 2[b] are not met, the state should award all beds to West Volusia. The conditions of 2[b] have been met. Therefore, this recommendation does not apply. No nursing home beds should be awarded to East Volusia County out of the New Smyrna Beach/Edgewater area. Refer to recommendation 2[b] above. The Meridian proposal seeks to add beds to its facility located in East Volusia County outside of the New Smyrna/Edgewater area. Meridian's proposal is, therefore, inconsistent with this recommendation. HBA's proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the updated 1986 district health plan. Meridian's and National's proposals are not consistent with these recommendations. The 1988 district health plan does not contain the specific recommendations concerning the allocation of nursing home beds within Subdistrict 4 of District 4, quoted above. The specific recommendations concerning where beds should be located within Subdistrict 4 of District 4 were eliminated in response to a suggestion by the Department that the recommendations were too specific and did not allow more flexibility. Need for Services. All of the applicants propose to provide a full range of services to their residents, including sub-acute care. The evidence did not prove that any of the applicants are proposing services not being provided in Subdistrict 4 of District 4. Section 381.705(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The evidence in this case failed to prove that like and existing health care services in Subdistrict 4 (consisting of Flagler and Volusia Counties) of District 4 are not available, efficient, appropriate, accessible, adequate or providing quality of care, except to the extent that existing services cannot meet the need for additional nursing home beds in the subdistrict. The accessibility of nursing home beds in southeast Volusia County has been restricted since September, 1987. Ocean View's occupancy during this period of time has been at or above 95 percent. Nursing home beds in eastern Volusia County have been at 75 percent occupancy. Meadowbrook Manor, located in Bunnell, Flagler County, has not achieved an occupancy rate of 75 percent since it opened in November, 1985. Meadowbrook Manor is a 100-bed nursing home. It has been experiencing one of the lowest, if not the lowest, occupancy rates of all nursing homes in Subdistrict 4. Although the evidence proved that Meadowbrook Manor has experienced difficulties in attracting residents, the evidence failed to prove that Meadowbrook Manor is not an appropriate, available and accessible nursing home or that the difficulties experienced by Meadowbrook Manor will continue in the future. Section 381.705(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Meridian. Meridian's licensed nursing home facility in Plantation, Florida, is currently rated superior. Meridian has been informed by the Department that its nursing home facility in Ormond Beach will be rated superior. Meridian's facility in Lakeland has not been in operation long enough to be eligible for a superior rating. Therefore, the Lakeland nursing home has been rated standard. Meridian will provide extensive training for its staff at its Ormond Beach nursing home. Meridian will provide staff for the Ormond Beach facility in excess of the staffing levels required by the Department. Meridian has an extensive quality assurance program, including its Quality of Life Program. Meridian's findings of fact numbers 5-12 and 14-22 are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Meridian proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. Meridian should be able to provide adequate quality of care in its facility. National. Four of National's fourteen existing nursing home facilities in Florida have been rated superior. The other ten facilities have be rated standard. National has a policy of seeking accreditation by the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. National will provide staff for its proposed facility in excess of the staffing levels required by the Department. National has an extensive quality assurance program. National's finding of fact number 24a-g and k is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. National proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. National should be able to provide adequate-quality of care in its proposed nursing home facility. HBA. Four of HBA's seven nursing home facilities in Florida have been rated superior. The other three facilities have been rated standard. Ocean View has been rated a superior facility by the Department for the past five years. HBA will provide extensive training and development for its staff at Ocean View. HBA proposes to provide sufficient services, safeguards and staff. HBA should be able to provide adequate quality of care at Ocean View. Section 381.705(1)(e), Florida Statutes. All three of the applicants in these cases operate a number of nursing homes and other health care facilities in Florida and other areas. Each will enjoy the benefits, including joint purchasing power, which inure to multi- facility organizations. None of the applicants, however, proved that they will provide joint, cooperative or shared health care resources more effectively than the other applicants. Section 381.705(1)(h), Florida Statutes. All of the applicants' proposals will be accessible to all of the residents of Flagler and Volusia Counties. Meridian has proposed to provide 53% and 51% of its patient days during its first year and its second year of operation, respectively, to the care of Medicaid patients. Meridian has proposed to provide 4% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicare patients. National has proposed to provide 57% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicaid patients. National has proposed to provide 10% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicare patients. National has not determined, however, how many nursing home beds it will dedicate to the care of Medicare patients. National has indicated that it will dedicate fourteen to twenty-four beds as a Medicare certified distinct-part unit. Nationally, 8% of National's total patient days for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, were Medicare patient days. HBA has proposed to provide 60% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicaid patients. HBA has proposed to provide 5% of its patient days during its first two years of operation to the care of Medicare patients. Section 381.705(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Immediate Financial Feasibility. The parties have stipulated to the following with regard to immediate financial feasibility of the proposals in these cases: All applicants are ready, willing and capable of raising all the required capital and obtaining all financing at the rates, conditions and amortizations shown in the applicants' certificate of need applications submitted in this cause. Long-term Financial Feasibility. (1). Meridian. Meridian has projected a profit of $67,976.00 on revenue of $2,536,518.00 for the first year of operation of its proposed 120-bed Ormond- Beach facility and a profit of $136,712.00 on revenue of $2,881,804.00 for the second year of operation of its proposed 120-bed Ormond Beach facility. Meridian has also projected a profit from the operation of its proposed 60-bed addition for the first two years of operation. Meridian has projected a payor mix of 49% Medicaid, 4% Medicare, 44% private pay and 3% other during the first year of operation and 46% Medicaid, 4% Medicare, 46% private pay and 4% other during the second year of operation. These projections are reasonable. Meridian's Ormond Beach facility opened in November, 1987. Although it was projected to fill up in twelve months, it only took five months. The facility had a waiting list of twenty people when it opened. Meridian's projected fill up rate for the additional 60 beds is reasonable. Meridian's projected patient charges are reasonable. Meridian's proposed Medicare charges are the lowest of the three applicants. Meridian's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. Meridian's project is financially feasible in the long term. (2). National. National has projected a loss of $96,990.00 on revenue of $986,598.00 for the first year of operation of its proposed facility and a profit of $269,603.00 on revenue of $1,847,865.00 for the second year of operation of its proposed facility. National has projected a payor mix of 52% Medicaid, 12% Medicare, 31% private pay and 4% other during the first year of operation and 48% Medicaid, 13% Medicare, 33% private pay and 5% other during the second year of operation. These projections are reasonable. National's projected fill up rate is reasonable. National's projected patient charges are reasonable. National's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. National's project would be financially feasible in the long term if there was a need for 80 nursing home beds. (3). HBA. HBA has projected a profit of $127,542.00 on revenue of $5,658,984.00 for the first year of operation of its proposed 239-bed facility and a profit of $188,614.00 on revenue of $6,213,164.00 for the second year of operation of its proposed 239-bed facility. HBA has projected a payor mix of 53% Medicaid, 6% Medicare, 34% private pay and 7% other during the first two years of operation. These projections are reasonable. HBA's projected fill up rate for the additional 60 beds is reasonable. HBA's projected patient charges are reasonable. HBA's projected revenue and expenses are reasonable. HBA's project is financially feasible in the long term. Section 381.705(1)(k), Florida Statutes. The evidence failed to prove that this criterion applies in this proceeding. Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes. Generally, all of the applicants will improve competition if their projects are approved. Based upon projected Medicaid and Medicare rates, Meridian will have the least adverse impact on patient charges. HBA will have the least adverse impact on private-pay patient charges. Section 381.705(1)(m), Florida Statutes. The cost of constructing Meridian's proposed addition is $932,100.00. This amounts to a per square foot cost of $64.14. Meridian's existing Ormond Beach nursing home is located on a 5.5 acre wooded site. The existing building was constructed with sufficient ancillaries for a 120-bed nursing home. Site plans, road work, sewer, utility connections and zoning have been designed and approved for a 120-bed facility. The cost per bed for Meridian's proposed 60-bed addition is $20,797.00, based upon the total projected project cost. The cost per bed for the existing 60-bed facility was $51,242.00. The cost per bed for the proposed 120-bed facility will be $35,519.00. Meridian's projected costs of construction are reasonable. Meridian's proposed methods of construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, are reasonable. The facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. The cost of constructing National's proposed facility is $2,789,346.00. This amounts to a per square foot cost of $63.13. The cost per bed for National's proposed 80-bed nursing home is $47,355.00. National's projected costs of construction are reasonable. National's proposed methods of construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, are reasonable. The facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. The cost of constructing HBA's proposed addition is $1,145,000.00. This amounts to a per square foot cost of $63.61. The cost per bed for HBA's proposed facility is $25,000.00, based upon the total projected project cost. HBA's projected costs of construction are reasonable. HBA has proposed construction of its 60-bed addition as a second floor addition to an existing first floor 60-bed wing at Ocean View. The second floor will be constructed by a method of construction which uses twin T concrete planks. These planks support the second floor. When the planks are placed over the existing wing patients in the existing wing will have to be displaced for a portion of one day. The existing dining room will not be used for approximately 4 to 6 weeks. The construction of HBA's addition will not endanger patients at Ocean View. HBA has successfully constructed second floor additions over existing facilities in the past. Although there will be some inconvenience, quality of care should still be provided during construction. The other applicants have raised a number of questions concerning the appropriateness of HBA's proposed addition. Those questions do not, however, prove that HBA will not provide an adequately designed and constructed addition or cannot provide quality of care. HBA's proposed methods of construction, including the costs and methods of energy provision, are reasonable. The facility will comply with code and regulatory requirements. The evidence failed to prove that there are alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction to the construction methods proposed by Meridian, National or HBA available. Section 381.705(1)(n), Florida Statutes. None of the applicants presented evidence concerning past or proposed care of the medically indigent, other than their care of Medicaid patients. Meridian has committed to provide 55% of its patient days in its Ormond Beach nursing home for the care of Medicaid patients. Meridian has not yet reached this level of care of Medicaid patients, however. At the time of the formal hearing Meridian was providing 46% Medicaid care. Meridian has not declined to serve Medicaid patients if a bed was available. During its fiscal year ending September 30, 1986, National provided 20.6% of its company-wide patient days to skilled Medicaid patients and 38.5% to intermediate Medicaid patients. HBA has been providing approximately 65% of its patient days at Ocean View to the care of Medicaid patients. All of the applicants propose to provide adequate care to Medicaid patients. The projected percentages of Medicaid patient days and revenue have been listed in previous findings of fact. Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes. To the extent applicable, all of the applicants comply with the requirements of Section 381.705(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order granting HBA's application for a certificate of need authorizing the addition of 60 nursing home beds to Ocean View and denying Meridian's and National's applications for certificates of need. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1989. APPENDIX CASE NUMBERS 88-1836 88-1839 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. All of the parties have filed proposed findings of fact which pertain to HCR. HCR also filed a proposed recommended order. In light of the fact that HCR has voluntarily dismissed its case, those proposed findings of fact have not been considered in this Appendix. Meridian's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 9, 11-12 and 46. 2 19-20. 3 90. The last two sentences are hereby accepted. 4 70. 5-12 See 49. 13 The parties stipulated that the criterion to which this proposed finding of fact relates has been met by all the parties. 14-22 See 49. 23 67-73. 24-27 These proposed findings of fact fail to take into account the fact that some of the costs attributable to the additional 60 nursing home beds sought by Meridian in this proceeding have been included in the cost of the existing facility. 28 107. 29 The proposed construction cost per square foot is $64.14. See finding of fact 89. 30-33 90. Hereby accepted. 34-41 Proposed findings of fact pertaining to HCR. 42 16-17. 43 23-25. 44 101 and hereby accepted. 45-49 See 103. Although there was evidence that supported these proposed findings of fact generally, the proposed findings of fact overlook the fact that HBA's drawings are preliminary and will be revised as needed to comply with the Department's requirements. The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that HBA's proposed methods of construction and costs are reasonable despite the necessary corrections in its preliminary plans. The proposed finding of fact concerning parking spaces is not relevant to this proceeding because the weight of the evidence failed to prove that any costs associated with additional parking spaces which may be needed have been left out of HBA's projected costs. The availability of parking spaces is not a consideration under the criteria of Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, except to the extent that costs associated with parking spaces should be taken into account. The first sentence is hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are not relevant to these proceedings. The rest of this proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 52-53 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The evidence did prove that, as of the date of the hearing of these cases, HBA should have filed a different pro forma which takes into account changes in its projected Medicaid revenue and its salary projections if this proceeding was a completely de novo proceeding. The Department has, however, taken the position that applicants cannot "amend" their applications between the date that an application is reviewed and a formal administrative hearing concerning the application. Therefore, HBA did not change its pro forma to reflect the most current information concerning Medicaid and salaries. HBA's financial expert was aware of the changes in Medicaid and salary expenses. Despite this knowledge, he testified that HBA's proposed facility is financial feasible. This testimony was accepted. 54 14-15. 55 21-22 and 95. Not relevant to this proceeding. 64. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 58 51. 59 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. National presented evidence that it would designate a portion of its proposed facility as a dedicated Medicare unit. 60 18, 21, 24 and 27. 61 26-29. 29. The last sentence is not relevant to this de novo proceeding. Not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 64-65 Contrary to the stipulation of the parties. 66 Contrary to the stipulation of the parties and not relevant. National's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 2 and 21. 2 1 and 3. 3-4 Hereby accepted. 5 4-6. 6 13-14. 15 and hereby accepted. Hereby accepted. 21 and 64 and hereby accepted. 10 21-22. 11 26. 12 27. See 28. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 31-32 and hereby accepted. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and erroneous conclusion of law. See 34-35. 17 35. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and erroneous conclusion of law. The first sentence is accepted in finding of fact 34. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence or is an erroneous conclusion of law. 20 28. See 37-38 and 45. National's proposal is not consistent with the 1987 district health plan. Subparagraph A. is not relevant to this de novo proceeding. Subparagraph B. is not relevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. The last sentence of subparagraph C. is not relevant to this de novo proceeding. The last sentence of subparagraph D. and subparagraphs e-h are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although subparagraph I. is generally correct, it is not sufficient to justify locating the nursing home beds to be awarded in this case in Flagler County. Subparagraph j. is not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first and last sentences are hereby accepted. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. 49 and 51-55. Subparagraph h. is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 59. Stipulated by the parties as true of all of the applicants. 27 60 and 63. 28 67 and see 75-79. 29 86. Section 381.705(1)(l), Florida Statutes, is to be applied to all of Subdistrict 4 of District 4 and not just Flagler County. 22, 94, 97 and hereby accepted. 32 64 and 108. 33 See 111. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Hereby accepted. HBA's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1 2 2-3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 7. 7 8. 8 9-12. 9 14-15. National does not have a corporate headquarters since it is not a corporation. 10, 14, 21, 25, 32 and 35 Proposed findings of fact pertaining to HCR. 11 16-17. The evidence proved that HBA owns 6, not 7, nursing homes in Florida. 12 18-20. 13 21-22. 15 23-24. 28, 30 and 34-35. Subparagraph b) is a statement of arguments advanced by Meridian and National. 27, 38 and hereby accepted. Subparagraph's c)1)-4) and 7) pertain to HCR. 18 See 42-45. 19 See 46-47 and 50. Subparagraph b) is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20 20, 51 and 54. 22 56-58 and hereby accepted. 23 59. 24 60. 26 Stipulated. 27 67. 28 85. See, however, 79. 29-30 Hereby accepted. 31 See 89. 33 18-20, 89 and 93. 34 22 and 96-97. 36 24-25, 101-104 and hereby accepted. 37 111. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1-2 28. 3 30. 4 2-3 and 7. 4 and 6. Not relevant to this proceeding. 7 26 and 28. 8-15 Although there is evidence to support these proposed findings, they are not relevant to this proceeding. As a matter of law, the Department cannot through agency policy circumvent the requirements of the Need Methodology of Rule 10-5.011(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code, by publishing a "fixed need pool" for which no point of entry to challenge has been provided. Not relevant to this de novo proceeding. Hereby accepted. Not relevant because the parties have stipulated that Section 381.705(1)(a), Florida Statutes, applies to these cases. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 20 32 and 36. 21 Hereby accepted. 22 32. 23 34. 24 33. 25 36. 26 29. 27 28. 28 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Charles D. Hood, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 15200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Lee Elzie, Esquire Post Office Box 82 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas W. Stahl, Esquire 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretarey Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation it was agreed and it is found that Petitioner's Petition for Administrative Hearing to contest Respondent's initial decision to deny its application was timely filed. On July 15, 1986, Petitioner submitted a Certificate of Need application to construct a 60 bed community nursing home in Collier County, Florida. In December, 1986, this application was denied by the Respondent because of its determination that there was insufficient numeric need according to the rule bed need methodology and because of the low utilization rate of existing facilities in Collier County. The initial intent to deny was appealed by Petitioner which filed a request for formal administrative hearing. Before the matter could be heard, however, Intervenor, Lakeside, filed a Petition for Intervention which was granted by the former Hearing Officer. After the case was set for hearing, Respondent, DHRS, and Petitioner, Surrey, entered into a stipulation and agreement in which DHRS agreed to reverse its position and support Surrey's application at the final hearing and, pursuant to that agreement, on May 14, 1987, DHRS filed a Notice of Change of Agency Position. Health Care Associates was formed in May, 1977, by Dr. John A. McCoy, PhD, in conjunction with an associate, Stanford L. Hoye, each of whom owns 50 percent of the business. This company which, upon approval, will develop and manage the Surrey project, has been involved in the development of several nursing homes in Florida, all but two of which have been managed by the corporation upon development. At the present time, in addition to the instant project, Petitioner is developing three other nursing home projects in Florida at Live Oak, Bradenton, and Crystal River. Dr. McCoy was instrumental in obtaining Certificates of Need for nine of the nursing homes developed by his company. Two of those have not yet been licensed and of the seven remaining facilities, five have been sold by the corporation to other unrelated organizations. In each case, Dr. McCoy personally realized a profit on the sale. Petitioner proposes to build a 60 bed skilled nursing facility in Collier County at a projected project cost of $1,600,000.00. Approximately $250,000.00 of that figure will be utilized for land acquisition and site costs; $150,000.00 for furniture, fixtures, and equipment; $100,000.00 for architectural fees; and $1,100,000.00 for construction costs, insurance, non- movable equipment, and other items. The initial state agency action report on the application, rendered in late November, 1986, recommended the project be denied on the basis there was insufficient bed need shown and because of the low utilization of currently licensed and operating facilities. Nonetheless, on May 6, 1987, the Department changed its position and entered into a stipulation and agreement with the Petitioner, in which it agreed that no CON approved nursing home beds exist in Collier County; the District Health Plan indicates a need for an additional 143 beds in that county in the applicable planning horizon; the bed to population ratio in Collier County for the 65 and older population is the lowest in the Health Care District; and the age 75 and over population is expected to increase by 24 percent within the next three years. On the basis of these factors and others outlined in the stipulation, the Department concluded, inter alia, that Petitioner proposed the lowest total project cost and the highest Medicare and Medicaid commitment, and determined that Petitioner's application should be approved. Petitioner has identified two potential sites for construction of the facility, both located in North Naples. Both sites carry an asking price substantially in excess of the land acquisition estimates outlined in the application, and neither is currently zoned for the operation of a nursing home. Zoning changes or variances are available, but the cost of securing them may be high and time consuming. Albeit each site would be utilized for construction of not only the proposed nursing home facility but also its related personal care unit, Petitioner estimates that 60 percent of the cost of land acquisition would be apportioned to the nursing home component and 40 percent to the personal care unit. That being the case, one of the parcels would fall within the proposed land acquisition figure cited. DHRS District VIII has been divided into subdistricts for the purposes of planning for community nursing home beds. Subdistrict 2 of District VIII consists of Collier County, Florida. The methodology used by DHRS to determine the need for community nursing home beds in Florida is found in Rule-10-5.011, F.A.C. and it provides, among other things, that the need for proposed new community nursing home beds is to be determined based on a planning horizon three years in the future from date of application. In this case, the appropriate planning horizon is July, 1989, three years after Petitioner's application was filed. The population figures relied upon by DHRS for ages 65 through 74 and ages 75 and above for the period July, 1986 and July, 1989 as of the date of the filing of the application were: 131,642 and 79,661 as well as 148, 229 and 96,142, respectively. The need formula contained in the F.A.C. also requires that the application submitted for July batching cycles be based upon the number of licensed beds in the District as of the preceding June 1. On June 1, 1986, District VIII showed 4,600 licensed community nursing home beds of which there were 473 licensed community nursing home beds in Subdistrict 2. As of November 26, 1986, however, there were no approved community nursing home beds in Collier County, a portion of Subdistrict 2. Another factor to be considered in the methodology is the occupancy rate within the district. As of the application period, the occupancy rate in Collier County was 84.44 percent including the occupancy data for Moorings Park. Petitioner and DHRS urge that it is DHRS policy to utilize at the de novo hearing the latest population figures available at the time of the initial application. These figures, cited above, reflect a 55 bed need in Collier county for the period July, 1989. There is, in addition, a factor which Petitioner urges relating to the licensure report submitted by Americana Nursing Home, located in Collier County, which indicates that a number of that facility's semiprivate rooms were converted to private rooms, thereby reducing the number of beds available for use in District VIII during the relevant time period. When this factor is incorporated into the calculations, a higher occupancy rate is indicated which results in a bed need of 66 rather than 55. Intervenor contests any adjustment made on the basis of Americana's conversion of some of its rooms from semiprivate to private rooms and a resultant decrease in the bed inventory thereby. It points out, and properly so, that former semiprivate rooms can be reconstituted as such in a very short period of time if needed and though the beds may not be set up when the room is a single room, the facility is capable of providing those additional beds without further approval when necessary. The removal of those beds, therefore, from the inventory, as a result of a temporary conversion is not an appropriate methodology. It has not been followed by DHRS in the past nor is it provided for in the rule and it should not be done here. Turning to the question of the population estimates and projections appropriate to make the proper calculation of numeric need for the area at the proper time, Intervenor objects to Petitioner's and DHRS' use of the pertinent population projections existing at the time of application on the basis that at a de novo hearing, the proper and most appropriate approach to bed need analysis and calculation would require the use of the most current available statistics. Utilizing the most current population projections for the July, 1989 planning horizon results in a net numeric need for July, 1989 of 21 beds with an error possible to 22 beds. In addition, the occupancy rate would be reduced and in that regard, evidence indicates that occupancy rates in Collier County have been low since 1982. However, there has been a steady and continuous rise in that figure since that time and as of July, 1987, it was 91.1 percent. The date upon which licensed beds are to be counted is provided for specifically in the rule defining need methodology, but the date upon which approved beds are to be counted is not stated in the rule. Similarly, the times for which population data are to be considered is contained in the rule methodology, but the release date of official estimates and projections to be utilized is not specified. Likewise, though the time period for which occupancy rates of existing facilities are to be considered is specifically set out, the input to be utilized when calculating "average occupancy rate" within that time period is not specifically established. In any case, the average occupancy rate as stipulated in the rule methodology for the area has been, until recently, consistently lower than 90 percent which is the figure identified in the rule methodology. Based on all the above, then, it must be found that the more accurate and pragmatic calculation of need utilizing the most current projections and discounting the agency policy for which the agency has not established any firm rationale or justifiable basis, indicates no numeric need for additional beds in the District during the period set forth in the planning horizon. Even if use of the rule methodology does not result in a mathematical showing of bed need sufficient to justify award of a certificate of need, nonetheless such a certificate can be awarded if other conditions and other circumstances establish a need that requires satisfaction within the area and the planning horizon. There was some dispute regarding poverty rates within Collier County and evidence presented at the hearing tends to indicate that the poverty rate in Collier County for the 65 and older population group is generally the lowest in the state. Low poverty rates among the elderly generally coincide with low nursing home utilization since wealthier patients generally have available to them alternatives to inpatient nursing home care. Intervenor urges, and there is no evidence to contradict it, that there are currently available alternatives to nursing home care for wealthy patients not only in Collier County but within District VIII as a whole. The Health Services and Facilities consultant for DHRS who initially reviewed Petitioner's application felt approval was not appropriate at the time he did his analysis. However, since that time additional information has caused him to conclude the application should be granted. He has subsequently learned that two of the four nursing homes in Collier County, which account for more than 50 percent of the beds licensed, have "conditional" quality ratings and there are currently no beds approved for construction in the county even though the county is one of the fastest growing counties in Florida. On the basis of this information, he now agrees with the agency's determination to approve a certificate of need for 60 beds for Petitioner. Based on what Mr. May knows of the three applicants, in his opinion Petitioner is the most appropriate applicant to receive the award. In the Stipulation entered into between Petitioner and the agency, the parties adopted the District VIII Health Council projection of 143 beds needed for Collier County for the 1986 planning horizon. The quarterly nursing home report for the period April through June, 1987, reflects the status of previously issued certificate of needs and includes all reported approved beds up to the date of issuance. This report shows that as of June 30, 1987, two applicants from prior batches received a total of 81 beds which, when subtracted from the 143 identified bed need, still leaves a 62 bed net need. Turning from the question of numeric need to other considerations regarding the applicant in issue, there can be little doubt that the estimates for the design of the proposed facility and construction are appropriate. The figures in Tables 18 and 19 of the application are also appropriate and reasonable. The costs for the project appear to be accurate and appropriate and the completion forecast timetable appears to be more than ample. Mr. Philips, the Vice President in charge of construction lending for the mortgage company which proposes to finance construction of the facility, is familiar with not only the applicant's corporate financial statement, but also those of the two principals, Dr. McCoy and Mr. Hoye. In his opinion, both are capable of providing the initial financing and their operations statements show a history of successful business operation. The 11 percent proposed as an interest rate for the loan supporting the construction is reasonable if not liberal, and the 25 year duration of the loan is also reasonable as is the loan origination fee of two points. If the certificate of need is approved, the lender is ready, willing, and able to lend the applicant sufficient funds to complete construction. Intervenor's expert in nursing home budgeting and financial feasibility analysis, testifying in contravention of Petitioner's experts, believes that approval of Petitioner's operation would have a severe financial impact on the Intervenor's operation as a current provider resulting in a first year bottom line loss of approximately $235,000 and a second year bottom line loss of almost $300,000. It should be noted here, however, that these are not actual operating losses but a projected reduction in profit. These estimates are based on August, 1987 figures adjusted forward for inflation. In short, while the opening of Petitioner's facility may have a negative impact on existing facilities, it would not necessarily result in a deficit operation for any existing provider. This expert also has some difficulty with Petitioner's projections of financial feasibility in its own facility. For example, he questions the 15 percent census of Medicare patients based on the fact that currently Intervenor does not have any Medicare patients though it does accept them. He also considers the estimate of a 96 percent occupancy by the end of six months to be unreasonable, especially in Collier County. He believes Petitioner's proposed expenses are understated and there are inconsistencies between the staffing table and labor costs in that the nursing expense is understated and the hourly rates projected to be paid are much too low. He believes that the projected cash flow is overstated since there is no provision for a reduction of principal. There are, also, other possible negative aspects to approval of Petitioner's application. Intervenor's regional director, who is an expert in nursing home administration, believes that approval of Petitioner's application will have a direct adverse reaction on Intervenor's Lakeside operation in regard to services provided, staffing, and its own financial feasibility. With regard to staffing, there is currently a critical shortage of nurses in Collier County and this factor was confirmed by a representative of another facility in the area. Approval of Petitioner's facility might well worsen the problem. Other service personnel are also in short supply and approval of Petitioner's application will worsen this as well. If these personnel shortages materialize, it may result in a reduction of quality of care, but this is speculative and there is no direct evidence that this would happen. Lakeside's current license is rated as "standard" as opposed to "superior" and this is claimed to be directly related to the nursing shortage which resulted in the facility's inability to attract sufficient nursing personnel to merit a "superior" rating. The witness identified other apparent deficiencies in applicant's submission, but these are either of a minor nature or the subject of opinion or conjecture. In short, the only substantive objection sustainable is the prospective adverse effect on the cost of attracting qualified nursing personnel. Certain other projections by the applicant are considered to be unreasonable by Americana's Director of Operations, such as the 15 percent projection for Medicare patients. Currently Americana, which generally has between 13 and 23 beds open at any time, has 2 Medicare patients and this witness also feels that a 96 per cent fill up rate in 6 months is unreasonable. Based on his experience, Collier County had even a slower than normal fill up rate when compared to other areas of the state. Notwithstanding the negative testimony, there can be little question, and it is so found, that Petitioner would be able to provide quality care if its application were approved. Turning to the question of the relationship of this application to State and Local health plans, the bed need calculation has already been discussed above. That calculation is based on the state methodology. However, the state methodology may be substantially different than a need developed by reference to the local health plan. The local plan looks at need from the county/subdistrict basis whereas the state looks at the district as a whole for establishment of need and then distributes beds on the basis of current bed census. When the smaller counties with fewer existing beds grow faster than the larger counties with a greater number of existing beds, they tend to be caught in a squeeze in that they get fewer beds because they are smaller, while their actual need may be greater than that of the larger county which, by virtue of its size, gets the larger number of beds. This state need rule, which calls for a 90 percent occupancy rate is felt by some to be less valid and less accurate a basis for evaluating the need in reality. As to the question of alternatives, there appear to be none for the vast majority of people in the county. Hospices or internal acute care bed or ambulatory facilities are not truly alternatives to nursing homes. In summary, Petitioner's expert believes that the Department's projected need for 43 beds could justifiably result in an approval of an application for 60 beds because: There were no approved beds at review time, Population trends, growth, and utilization trends indicate a need for new beds, The bed to population ratio in the county is one of the lowest in the district and in the state, (16 or 17/1,000 vs 27/1,000 normal for 65 plus) and the situation has not changed, Although the 65 plus population is used to determine need, the greatest use of nursing home facilities comes from the 75 plus population which is expected to increase in Collier County by July, 1989 by 32 percent, double the statewide average, At the time of application review, no existing facility was rated "superior" (there are now), showing a need for options. The applicant has a record of "superior" ratings statewide, The district health plan shows a bed need exceeding 60 beds for Collier County, The granting of a 60 bed nursing home is not inconsistent with previous actions by the Department when a mathematical need less a bed showed than 60 number. The project also is consistent with the rule criteria as well as statutory criteria, and Given DHRS's methodology and considering the adjustments due to Americana's change, there can be shown a mathematical need greater than the 43 shown by DHRS. Whether the need is 43 or 66 is really not important. The need is there. There is much to be said for these conclusions and they are adopted as findings herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, approving Petitioner, Health Care Associates, Inc., d/b/a Surrey Place of Collier County' application for a certificate of Need to establish and operated a 60 bed skilled nursing facility in Collier County, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0691 The following constitutes my specifics rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT JOINT SUBMISSION 1 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10 - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted as a statement of DHRS policy and the resultant figures determined thereunder but rejected as the appropriate source of information. 17 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as Petitioner's and Respondent's calculation but rejected as bearing in the Issue of bed need. Rejected as not reducing the number of available beds. Rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24 - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32 - 34. Accepted. 35 - 50. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 53 - 54. Accepted and incorporated herein. 55 - 56. Accepted. 57. Accepted. 58 - 59. Accepted. 60. Accepted. 61 - 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. 66 - 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70. Accepted. FOR INTERVENOR 1 - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance. First sentence is rejected. Occupancy rates of other local facilities are not necessarily determinative of the expected occupancy rates of Petitioner in the absence of a showing of similarity of other factors. 16 - 19. Rejected as based on other than the best evidence. No original source was presented. 20. Accepted. 21 - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26 - 27. Accepted. 28 - 29(b). Accepted. 30 - 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. 33 - 34. Accepted and incorporated herein - except for that portion of paragraph 34 indicating the approval of Petitioner's application would be inconsistent with local health plan. Accepted but not determinative. Accepted but not determinative. First sentence rejected as argumentative. Remainder accepted. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected. 40-42. Accepted except for the last sentence of paragraph 40 which is rejected. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven. Mr. May was unaware of possible charges during lag time. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as argument rather than fact. 52 - 53. Irrelevant in light of 53. which is accepted. 54 - 55. Irrelevant in light of Intervenors' paragraph 55 which is accepted. 56 - 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59. Accepted. 60 - 64. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as biased. Accepted. Accepted as to the fact that a reduction in Lakeside's income might occur, but rejected as to its severity. Intervenor presents a "worst case" picture based on speculation and conjecture. Accepted that Petitioner's projected site is near that of Intervenor. Remainder rejected as conjecture. 70 - 71. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip F. Blank, Esquire Reynold Meyer, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Asst. General Counsel 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 W. David Watkins, Esquire Oertel & Hoffman, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On November 23, 1988 petitioner, Lee County Board of County Commissioners d/b/a Shady Rest Nursing Home (applicant, Shady Rest or County), filed its application with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), for a certificate of need (CON) seeking authorization to replace one hundred and five existing beds and to add seventy-five nursing home beds so as to create a one hundreds eighty bed community nursing home facility at 3922 Michigan Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida. In the alternative, the County requested a partial award of replacing its existing facility add adding fifteen beds so as to create a one hundred twenty bed facility. Under the alternative plan, the County projected an anticipated capital expenditure of $5,490,500. The County has agreed that, if the application is approved, the additional beds would be dedicated exclusively to Medicaid patients. After reviewing the application and certain additional information filed by the County through the omissions process, HRS deemed the application to be complete on January 9, 1989. Thereafter, on March 10, 1989 HRS issued proposed agency action advising the County that its application had been denied. As grounds, the agency generally stated that its evaluation of the application revealed the applicant had not satisfied certain statutory and rule criteria. In addition, HRS concluded that the County had failed to provide adequate documentation prior to the January 9, 1989 "completeness" date to support its request. This action prompted the County to request a formal hearing to contest the agency's preliminary decision. However, the appeal is limited to the partial award request to add fifteen beds and establish a one hundred twenty bed facility. It is noted that there were no other applicants in the November 1988 batching cycle and no existing providers have intervened in this proceeding. The Applicant The County's facility is located in subdistrict 5 (Lee County) of HRS District 8. The County has owned and operated Shady Rest Nursing Home for approximately twenty-eight years. Now licensed for one hundred five beds, the facility is categorized by HRS as a community nursing home. This means that it serves the population at large and has not received a certificate of need designating the beds as sheltered beds in accordance with Chapter 656, Florida Statutes (1987). As a publicly owned facility, the nursing home provides service to the public regardless of profit. Although the facility received annual subsidies from the County until as recent as four years ago, the facility now operates on a fiscally sound basis. The most typical patient at Shady Rest is Medicaid eligible. Because the plant is around thirty-one years old, the County desires to construct a new, more efficient and less costly to operate facility. In this regard, it is noted that HRS supports the construction of a new facilites for the existing one hundred five beds but opposes the authorization for any new beds. Since by law a facility can have no more than sixty beds for each nursing station, it was more logical and efficient for the applicant to design a facility having one hundred twenty beds, or one that required two nursing stations. Thus, besides need, the additional fifteen beds are predicated on economic and planning considerations. Motion in Limini There is no specific methodology that is prescribed by HRS to inform applicants of what is needed to meet the burden of proof regarding not normal circumstances. Rather, applicants must rely on the language in Rule 10- 5.11(1)(k)2.j., Florida Administrative Code (1987). As noted in finding of fact 8, HRS has just begun using a new CON application form for nursing homes. The County's application was submitted in the first batching cycle in which the new CON application form was used. In its application, the County stated it was applying for more beds than were contained in the published fixed need pool pursuant to the special circumstances contained in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(k)2.j. of Rule 10-5.011, Florida Administrative Code (1987). Also attached to the application was what the County describes as "detailed evidence" of need for Medicaid-eligible nursing home beds in Lee County and the then current number of Lee County residents were located in out-of-county nursing homes. The detailed evidence is found on page one of two of Appendix 1 (1B2 - Optional) of the application and consists of the statement that "approximately 750-775 Lee County residents are reported in this (Medicaid) program as being in nursing care facilities. Approximately 130-150 of these residents are located in nursing homes outside of Lee County. Shady Rest Nursing Home experiences a waiting list of approximately 8 to 15 Lee County residents per month." Aside from this, no other information or documentation concerning special circumstances was included with the application. Although the County had at least three corroborating patient lists in its possession at the time the application was filed, it chose not to include them with the initial application or through the omissions process. At hearing, the County proffered into evidence the waiting lists and a more recently prepared letter of support and quality assurance manual on the theory they merely supplemented the statement set forth in Appendix 1 of the application. However, HRS did not consider these to be matters within the general scope of the application, deemed them to be impermissible amendments and objected to their admission by a motion in limini. The Review Process As an aid in evaluating applications for nursing home facilities, HRS recently instituted a somewhat complicated scoring system which involves an analysis of the responses provided by the applicant in its application. The scoring system is not codified in rule or statute form but is utilized on an ad hoc, case by case basis. The evaluation process rates an applicant's compliance with eight objectives which are designed to track the CON review criteria. The objectives are described in detail in HRS exhibits 3 and 4 received in evidence. Each objective has been assigned a certain number of points in the scoring process ranging from thirty to five hundred, or a total possible score of 1,398 points. The responses are measured by two HRS in-house consultants against this established point system, and numerical scores are assigned by them to each of eight categories of objectives. The two scores are averaged, and the overall score is then evaluated as a percentage of total points attained. Since a maximum of 1,398 points may be attained by an applicant, the overall average score is applied to that number to attain the applicable percentage. According to HRS, if a sufficient proportion of the total available points is achieved, the achievement indicates that the proposal is in conformance with the statutory and rule review criteria. The agency points out, however, that there is no passing score per se but rather the goal is to attain the highest score possible. In addition, the successful applicant will achieve a consistently high number in each of the eight rated objectives. This is because HRS equates consistency with capability to implement a successful project. In this case, HRS's review of the County's application resulted in the County achieving an overall average score of 710.81 points on its partial award request. This equated to a "score" of 50.84 percent of the 1,398 maximum assignable points. The agency then concluded that the applicant had "not demonstrated sufficient compliance with all relevant certificate of need review criteria for the approval of nursing home beds." The state agency action report received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 2 indicated that the County's overall strengths were determined to be objectives 6 and 7 while its major weakness was noted in objective 1. The latter objective related to the identification of the nursing home fixed need bed pool and conformance with the local and state health plans. Compliance with Rule Criteria For purposes of determining the need for additional community nursing home beds in Lee County, HRS used a planning horizon of July 1991. In other words, through the use of a formula embodied in a rule, the agency calculated the number of new community nursing home beds projected to be needed in Lee County (the applicable subdistrict) at a relevant future period of time. The parties have agreed that under this formula no new beds are projected to be needed in Lee County during the planning horizon. As a general rule, additional beds would not normally be approved under these circumstances. However, the County contends that "not normal" circumstances are present that justify the need for an additional fifteen beds. Under this approach, an award of additional beds can be made even if no formula need exists if the applicant can show "special circumstances". One such special circumstance recognized by HRS is the inability of residents to obtain access to licensed and unoccupied beds in the area. The County has relied upon this exception and contends there is a demonstrated shortage of community nursing home beds in the subdistrict for Medicaid eligible patients. Underpinning the applicant's use of the exception are three waiting lists maintained by the facility over the past year and a half. They were proffered to show that persons with a need for nursing home care have been denied access to currently licensed but unfilled beds. One list (petitioner's exhibit 5) begun in 1987 contains the names of a large number of individuals who have filed applications with Shady Rest, of whom the County identifies twenty- one as being Medicaid-eligible and appropriate for immediate placement. A second list (petitioner's exhibit 6) contains the names of persons who made a phone inquiry with the home. Although there was no supporting documentation to show those individuals' demonstrated need for nursing home care as required by the rule, the facility's social service coordinator testified without contradiction that the above twenty-one persons were all determined to be Medicaid eligible and appropriate for placement in a nursing home. Even so, there was no independent or corroborative evidence that those twenty-one individuals had been denied placement in other Lee County nursing homes. This infirmity supports the claim of HRS that the list, in its present form, is not probative of the issue of need because clients often sign up on multiple lists or have a preference for a particular facility. This assertion was not contradicted by credible evidence. A third list (petitioner's exhibit 7) reflected that each month from August 1988 until July 1989 there were between one hundred fourteen and one hundred thirty-four Medicaid eligible Lee County residents in nursing homes outside of Lee County. This information was derived from monthly Medicaid billing summaries compiled by HRS. While it is probably true, as HRS suggests, that some of these patients by choice are residents of out-of-county facilities, it is just as likely that some patients did not voluntarily choose to be placed outside the county. This is because placement in an out-of-county home is inconvenient for a patient's family, particularly one at the poverty level. To the extent involuntary out-of-county placements have occurred, it is because some nursing homes may not always accept a Medicaid patient. For example, a nursing home may not be equipped to handle a particular client's medical condition. However, this type of client will always have a more difficult time being placed than others. Therefore, there are occasions when vacancies at nursing homes do not correspond with the ability to place a Medicaid-eligible patient in Lee County. To corroborate the contention that it has been unable to accept all applicants, the County established that its September 30, 1988 utilization rate was 98% with the percentage of Medicaid patients at 88% of the 98%. It was also established that the rate has not decreased since that time. According to the County, this high utilization factor has contributed to the County's inability to provide service to all applicants. Even so, a high utilization rate alone is not dispositive of the accessibility issue. While County representatives contended they have had difficulty in placing Medicaid eligible patients not only in their facility but also in other Lee County nursing homes, the HRS District 8 administrator, who is responsible for assisting those individuals in securing placement, had no "hard data" to confirm this. Indeed, her subordinates, who also testified, indicated that the alleged difficulty in placement arose only "at times". Given these considerations, it is found that persons with a need for Medicaid services are reasonably able to access existing services in the subdistrict and that the required not normal circumstances within the meaning of the rule are absent. Compliance with Statutory Criteria Prior to hearing the parties stipulated that various statutory and rule criteria were not applicable in this proceeding. After the evidentiary hearing was held, the agency acknowledged in its post-hearing proposed order that only five statutory criteria in Subsection 381.705(1), Florida Statutes (1987) are still in issue and that only two paragraphs in rule 10-5.011(1) apply. The first three statutory criteria pertain generally to need and accessibility and require that HRS consider the need for the project in relation to the applicable district and state health plans, the adequacy of existing providers and whether the proposed services will be accessible to all residents. In addition to the findings in paragraph 12, it is noted that for purposes of planning and review of nursing home care in District 8, the local health plan, which has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 6, recommends that "preference . . . be given to new and existing community home bed developments that dedicate a substantial percentage of their beds for Medicaid patients." In addition, it recommends that "expansion of existing facilities to 120 beds should be given prefernce over construction of new facilities in the same health service area." Applicant's proposal is in agreement with those objectives, and it is found that the proposal is consistent with the local health plan. As required by law, the application also mandates that the applicant demonstrate compliance with relevant portions of the state health plan, including justification for an award of beds in excess of the zero fixed need pool. Those portions of the plan have been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 7. In its application response, the County simply stated that it did not have a copy of the state plan and therefore could not furnish an answer to this inquiry. At hearing, the County relied upon the special circumstances proof to show compliance with the state health plan. Since special circumstances were not shown to be present, the applicant also failed to show that the project is in conformity with the state health plan. Finally, it was established that the project will be accessible to all residents in the district. In its proposed order, HRS appears to have conceded that the County will provide adequate quality of care to to its patients. Nonetheless, and in an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made on this issue. The issues of whether the County can provide quality of care as well as the applicant's past record of quality of care are relevant. In this regard, the parties offered into evidence the records of past inspections by HRS personnel to show the historical record of care on the part of the facility. These records reflect that HRS gave the facility a standard rating in 1986 and 1987. In 1988, an initial inspection resulted in the facility receiving a conditional rating. However, the facility appealed that decision and was successful in getting the conditional rating removed. Since May 16, 1988 the County has maintained a superior rating which is indicative of the high quality of care rendered to its patients. These findings were corroborated by local HRS employees who characterized Shady Rest's' quality of care as "high". Therefore, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The next criterion in issue relates to the long-term financial feasibility of the project. As noted earlier, the facility was subsidized by the County until four years ago. Since then, it has operated in the black. According to the County's consultant, if the project is approved, the County will provide subsidies of $900,000 and $250,000, respectively, during the first two years of operation and any other required funding thereafter. It should be recognized, however, that the first year is the start-up of operations, with relatively high costs due to inventories, working capital and the like. The witness further opined that he expected the facility to be financially sound in the future. This is true even though the facility projects a payor mix of decreasing Medicaid days in the future. Therefore, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The only remaining criterion in issue concerns the costs and methods of the proposed construction and whether there are less costly alternatives. The agency's principal objection concerns the failure of the County's architect to document on the plans whether the project would be in compliance with local, state and federal building codes. More specifically, HRS's objection is based upon contentions that the County (a) did not document local, state and federal code references on the schematics, (b) did not address the relationship of the replacement facility with the bed addition, and (c) did not sufficiently document the support functions on the schematics. In response to the first objection, the registered architect who drafted the plans established that there are some forty-five codes that the structure must meet in order to pass muster with HRS. He did not identify each of the codes on the drawings because (a) the pertinent rules do not call for such a representation at this phase of the project, (b) "it is obvious what codes it would be built under", and (c) the plans would be subject to three more reviews by HRS, and a more detailed analysis would be given during that part of the process. It is noted that the architect has constructed more than twenty nursing home projects in Florida and used the same plans here as are being currently used on four other facilities now under construction in the state. As to the agency's objection to the failure to show where the additional fifteen beds will be placed in the facility in relation to the other one hundred and five, the architect pointed out that the new facility will have one hundred twenty beds, all of which are "new" in a sense, and it is irrelevant where the fifteen "new" beds will be located from an architectural standpoint. Finally, the architect responded to the last criticism by explaining that the drawings are self-explanatory and show designated support areas with the associated square footage devoted to a particular function. The witness added that the drawings submitted by the app1icant are "a very basic schematic" and in an early preliminary stage. This testimony is accepted and it is found that this statutory criterion has been met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the application of the Lee County Board of County Commissioners d/b/a Shady Rest Nursing Home for a certificate of need to add fifteen beds and construct a new one hundred twenty bed community nursing home facility in Fort Myers, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Donald R. Alexander, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1989.
