Findings Of Fact Based upon the documents filed herein and the stipulations and arguments of counsel at the telephonic hearing, the following Findings of Fact are determined: Respondent, DePoo Memorial Doctor's Hospital (DEPOO) applied for a Certificate of Need for the establishment of a 15-bed short-term psychiatric service. CON #3248 was granted DEPOO for 15 short-term psychiatric beds on June 23, 1984, and noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly of July 6, 1984. Petitioner Florida Keys Memorial Hospital (FKM) alleges issuance of CON #3248 to DEPOO affects their substantial interests. FKM admits that it did not, prior to receipt by DHRS of the DEPOO proposal being reviewed, formally indicate an intention to provide such similar services in the future, i.e. short-term psychiatric beds. FKM is an established acute care hospital which, among other obvious services of an acute care facility, currently provides psychiatric care as patients are admitted for that purpose or, if a patient is admitted for another purpose, FKM may provide additional care for a psychiatric condition tangential to the purpose or treatment for which that patient is initially admitted. No beds are allocated specifically for short-term psychiatric care at FKM. Indeed, FKM has no license to perform the health care services of a short- term psychiatric hospital and thus no short-term psychiatric beds. Its performance of any psychiatric services is, essentially, ad hoc and the extent thereof is fully described in Paragraph 4, above. It was stipulated among the parties that there was no licensed short- germ psychiatric facility in the Key West area of Monroe County, Florida at the time DEPOO's application for a CON for a 15 bed short-term psychiatric facility was reviewed; that FKM was granted a prior CON for short-term psychiatric beds, which CON of FKN had expired without being implemented by FKM prior to the agency's review of DEPOO's application; and that currently there still is no facility licensed in the Key West area of Monroe County for short-term psychiatric care. Rule 10-5.11(25), F.A.C. provides a methodology for short-term psychiatric bed need determination which is separate and distinct from that bed need methodology applicable to FKM as an acute care hospital. See Rule 10- 5.11(23), F.A.C. Further, application for acute care CONs and short-term psychiatric CONs are reviewed separately by DHRS. Since the services offered by FKM [acute care] and by those proposed by DEPOD [short-term psychiatric] are the subject of separate and distinct need methodologies, they are not "similar."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the petition for Formal Hearing be dismissed with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas L. Mannheimer, Esquire 318 North Calhoun Street P. O. Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3300 Richard C. Klugh, Jr., Esquire Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner, OPI, is entitled to CON #5544, for a 60-bed adult short-term psychiatric hospital in Orange County, Florida, HRS District VII.
Findings Of Fact The Parties OPI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PIA Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA), which is a subsidiary of National Medical Enterprises, Inc. (NME). PIA is one of the country's largest providers of psychiatric hospital services, with over 50 facilities throughout the United States. One of its existing facilities is Laurel Oaks Hospital in Orange County Florida. This is an 80-bed specialty hospital, licensed to provide short-term psychiatric and substance abuse services to children and adolescents. HRS is the state agency designated by law to implement and enforce the CON program in Florida pursuant to Sections 381.701-381.715, F.S. (1987). Intervenor, West Lake, is an 80-bed licensed psychiatric hospital in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, in HRS District VII. West Lake's license is for 40 short-term beds, 30 long-term beds, and 10 substance abuse beds. West Lake treats children, adolescents and adults. Intervenor, Florida Hospital, is a licensed full-service acute care facility with over 1,000 beds in three locations: Orlando, Altamonte Springs and Apopka, Florida. It has 105 licensed short-term psychiatric beds serving adolescents and adults at its Orlando and Altamonte Springs campuses, in HRS District VII. The OPI Proposal OPI proposes to develop a 60-bed free standing short-term psychiatric hospital to treat adults (over 18 years of age). Although the hospital will be located in Orange County, no specific site has been selected. The total gross square footage for the facility is 45,000 square feet, with a total project cost of $7,324,000.00, to be funded by NME. The facility will have three wings with provisions for both locked and unlocked units; and will include, like other PIA hospitals, the usual contingent of bedrooms, classrooms, dining rooms, group and activity rooms, therapy rooms, seclusion rooms, a kitchen, gymnasium, pool, nurses station, laboratory, pharmacy, and general maintenance and housekeeping areas. OPI will treat a standard range of psychiatric disorders, but has not yet identified any specific programs. The anticipated average length of stay is 18 to 21 days. OPI has identified Orange County as its primary service area but, based on its experience with Laurel Oaks, it expects a significant number of patients will be drawn from Seminole County and from Osceola County. It will not attempt to draw patients from Brevard, the fourth county in District VII. Referrals will come from a variety of sources, including mental health professionals in the area and other mental health service-providers, as well as from direct patient inquiries. The patient will be admitted by a psychiatrist on the staff of the hospital and, after an initial evaluation and development of a treatment plan, will have the advantage of a wide range of treatment modalities delivered by a multi- discipline treatment team. OPI projects a gross charge of $433.00 per day in the unlocked unit and $478.00 per day in the locked unit, with a payor mix of 10% Medicare, 3% indigent, 5% private pay, 79% insurance, 2% CHAMPUS, and 1% PPO/HMO. OPI's pro forma statement relies on a 50% occupancy for year one and 75% for year two, with a projected loss of $1,173,000.00 and gain of $65,000.00 respectively. (OPI Exhibit 3, p. 40) Need for the project as addressed in the "fixed need pool" and "need methodology" rules. Rule 10-5.008(2)(a), F.A.C., requires HRS to publish a fixed need pool for each applicable planning horizon at least 15 days in advance of the letter of intent deadline in each batching cycle. In this case the fixed need pool was published in the February 12, 1988 issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. In arriving at a net need of zero short term psychiatric beds in District VII, HRS, with one variation, applied the need methodology for short- term psychiatric beds described in Rule 10-5.011(1)(0)4., F.A.C. This is a two-step process involving the development of net numeric need based on a formula utilizing projected population data and approved and licensed beds, and the scrutiny of occupancy rates for existing beds. The parties in this case agree that under the first step of the process there is a net need for at least 60 short-term psychiatric beds in District VII for the January 1993 planning horizon. Those beds could be allocated, under the formula in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.a. and b., F.A.C., to either a general or speciality hospital. The second step of the process requires a determination of whether minimum occupancy standards have been met pursuant to subparagraph e. of the rule. For adult short term psychiatric beds, the standard is at least 75% occupancy; for child and adolescent beds, the standard is 70%. Both are to be determined based on an average annual occupancy rate "... for the preceding 12 month period." This step presents a major issue in this case, as the occupancy rates arrived at by OPI substantially exceed those found by HRS and the Intervenors' planning experts. The phrase "preceding 12-month period" is not defined in the methodology rule; that is, the rule does not provide a specific event for the close of the 12-month period. For the purposes of arriving at the fixed need pool, HRS cannot consider that period to be the 12 months immediately preceding the application date, as the fixed need pool must be published in advance of that date. Because of various deadlines associated with the publication of the fixed need pool, in this case HRS had to complete its calculations for fixed need by February 4, 1988. At that time, data for the full calendar year 1987 was not available. HRS felt it necessary to use a standard baseline of data, uniform across all eleven districts, in order to ensure fair treatment of potential applicants state-wide who would be relying on the fixed need pool. For that reason, and because HRS also needed time to verify the data it obtained, HRS utilized the 12-month period of October 1986 through September 1987, for the February 1988 publication of the fixed need pool. The fixed need pool is not divided into age categories, so HRS' Office of Comprehensive Health Planning uses the lower of the two standards for short- term psychiatric beds, 70% occupancy. This resulted in a zero need in $he fixed need pool, because the occupancy rate for all existing short-term psychiatric beds in District VII from October 1986 through September 1987 was 67.7%. HRS' review of PIA's application and omissions response for purposes of the SAAR entitled a slightly different approach, utilizing data from calendar year 1987 to calculate the occupancy rate. This data reflected a district-wide rate of 72.71% and an Orange County rate of 68.66%, both below the 75% threshold for adult beds. When data from Laurel Oaks Hospital is excluded from the Orange County calculations, the rate is 56.2%. Even OPI's health planning expert, Carol Moore, concedes that it is appropriate to exclude all data and all statistics relating to child and adolescent beds. In District VII, however, the data is not reported in that manner. In District VII, two short-term psychiatric hospitals are dedicated solely to the treatment of children and adolescents: Laurel Oaks in Orange County, and CPC Palm Bay in Brevard County. In other facilities such as West Lake and Florida Hospital, which treat both adults and youths under the age of 18, HRS considers all beds as "available" to adults if they are not otherwise specifically identified. This is a nonrule policy, but one clearly articulated and justified by HRS' expert health planner, Reid Jaffe. OPI insists that the appropriate "12-month period" for calculation of occupancy rates is March, 1987 through February, 1988, the period immediately preceding the application deadline. This is a reasonable reading of the rule. Yet when data relating to facilities which treat only child and adolescent patients are excluded from the calculation, the resulting occupancy rates for the March 1987 through February 1988 period are 73.3% in District VII, and 57.4% in Orange County. When all existing short-term psychiatric beds are included for that same period, the 75% threshold is still not met; the occupancy rate in District VII is 74%, and in Orange County is 71.2%. The District I local health council, under contract with HRS, provides data for short-term psychiatric bed utilization in the district. Another available source of data is the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB). Acute care general hospitals report psychiatric patient days to the HCCB by diagnostically related groups (DRGs), further subdivided into major diagnostic categories (MDCs). MDC 19 relates to mental diseases and disorders. Utilizing the data reported under MDC 19, OPI was able to satisfy the 75% occupancy threshold. Those calculations are found in OPI's exhibits #17 and 19. For the first nine months of 1987, the occupancy rate in District VII is found to be 78.2%, based on the MDC 19 data combined with the local health council data. When the HCCB data is annualized with a straight line projection the occupancy rate for calendar year 1987 is 80%. This use of HCCB data is inappropriate for several reasons. The data reflects patient days for psychiatric patients treated in non- psychiatric beds in licensed acute care hospitals. Those same beds are available for non-psychiatric patients and are not the beds referenced in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4.e, FAC as "existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds." Carol Moore for OPI counted only patient days, not the beds available to treat the patients. Her approach inflated occupancy, as counting only beds used by a patient results in a 100% occupancy. Consistency in utilizing MDC 19 data would require the consideration of all acute care beds available for psychiatric patients. The occupancy rate for acute care beds in District VII is 50%. This translates into approximately 2000 empty beds in District VII. Finally, the MDC 19 data is based on the primary discharge diagnosis, which may be skewed. The hospitals are given discretion in selecting which diagnosis is primary in patients with multiple diagnoses, and hospitals may be motivated to classify a patient to maximize third-party payment. Applying the fixed need pool and the methodology in Rule 10- 5.011(1)(a)4., Florida Administrative Code, the OPI project is not needed. Neither the fact that West Lake has a short term occupancy rate of over 100%, because it utilizes some licensed long term psychiatric beds for short-term patients, nor the fact that some beds in Orange County were "off-line" or in a start up phase during 1986-87, affects this finding. Had there been patient demand for the off-line beds, the two facilities, Florida Hospital and Orlando Regional Medical Center, could have placed the patient in another bed in the hospital and provided the same psychiatric services. The facilities in the start up phase are meant to be protected by the occupancy threshold, as it helps insure their beds are properly utilized before additional beds are approved. Consistency With the State and Local Health Plans The State Health Plan in effect when the project was reviewed is the 1985-1987 plan. It includes three goals. Goals 1. and 2., by their own terms, apply only through 1987. Goal 1. substantially reiterates the need methodology, including the 75% occupancy threshold. The threshold in the plan, however, requires consideration of both existing and approved beds, resulting in a lower occupancy level in District VII than if only existing beds were considered. Goal 2. urges the development of a continuum of high quality, cost effective private sector mental health substance abuse services. The objectives under this goal relate directly to policies regarding appropriate treatment settings and third party reimbursement practices, and are not relevant to this project. Goal 3. relates primarily to public mental health services and is not applicable to this project. The local health plan applicable to review of OPI's project is the 1985 local health plan for District VII. Part 3 of the plan addresses policies and priorities for psychiatric and substance abuse services. OPI's project is partially consistent with the relevant policies in that plan. Policies 3 and 4 adopt the need methodology of Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. As discussed above, those policies are not satisfied by the project. Policy 6 addresses certain priorities to be given for approval of applicants who are especially committed to serving underserved groups, who reallocate existing underutilized beds, who propose geriatric service, and who propose long-term services for children and adolescents. With its projected 3% indigent and 10% medicare classification, OPI's commitment to the underserved is minimal. It has stated an intent to provide services to geriatric patients, but has not defined any program for those services. OPI has stated its intent to comply with policies 7, 8, 9 and 10, relating to availability of emergency services, accreditation by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH), consistency with the state and local mental health plans, and coordination of services with other mental health services providers. Like and Existing Services Sections 381.705(1)(b), and (2)(b) and (d), F.S. require consideration of the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district. In Orange County there are no other facilities providing short term psychiatric services to adults only. There are, however, three facilities providing those services to adults, as well as children and adolescents. In 1987, and in the twelve months preceding the date of application, none of those facilities had an occupancy rate over 61%. District-wide, there were eight such facilities, only two of which had an occupancy rate of over 75%, both in Seminole County. One of those, Florida Hospital, in Altamonte Springs, dropped to 73.5% in the more recent 12-month period prior to the application date. The existing facilities are plainly underutilized. No credible evidence was presented to show that these existing facilities are inappropriate, inefficient or inaccessible, or that they do not provide good quality care. Financial Feasibility OPI's pro forma is based in part on its projected occupancy rates of 50% the first year, and 75% the second year. While the Laurel Oaks facility has enjoyed a favorable occupancy rate (over 90%), that facility serves only children and adolescents. OPI's proposed adult facility has no unique attributes which would suggest a substantially greater success in filing beds than the other like facilities in Orange County already discussed above. OPI's pro forma was presented by its health care finance expert, Gene Newell, who reviewed, but did not prepare the document. His opinion that the project will be financially feasible is based on extensive experience with PIA facilities, including four of PIA's psychiatric facilities in Florida. The expenses and patient days (including average length of stay) are based on PIA's experience in its other facilities. That experience has been a financial success, and nothing in the OPI project, save perhaps its location in an area where similar facilities are underutilized, would distinguish it from its corporate sisters. The Costs and Methods of Construction The intervenors call it a "generic" design; OPI calls it a prototype. In either case, the design for this project is essentially the same as other PIA facilities, including Medfield, in Clearwater, a facility whose design and construction was previously approved by HRS. Although specific programs have not been developed, the design is flexible enough to accommodate a variety of programs which may be selected later when the administrator is hired. There were two errors in the application's listing of furniture and equipment according to Thomas Ebejer, Senior Vice-President of design and construction for PIA. Those errors, the inclusion of medical office building furniture and a computational error in figuring the cost of day treatment furniture, result in an overstatement of costs of approximately $57,000.00. On the other hand, some computer equipment and a biofeedback machine were not included in the costs. The net result of those errors does not materially affect the reasonableness of the total construction and equipment cost. Availability of Health Manpower As planned, the OPI project will be appropriately staffed, and it is likely that with aggressive recruitment techniques, including competitive salaries, and retention bonuses, the necessary staff will be hired. However, as conceded by OPI witnesses, there is a shortage of nurses in District VII. PIA Administrator Richard Warden blames the shortage on the proliferation of nursing agencies, and argues that if the agencies were controlled, the nursing shortage could be alleviated. No evidence was presented that any controls are likely. Qualified social workers and counselors are also difficult to recruit in District VII. When Laurel Oaks was licensed, other facilities lost staff. West Lake presently provides funding to Seminole Community College to expand the size of their nursing classes, as one step to alleviate the staff shortage. Impact on the Cost of Services and the Effect of Competition Competition for limited manpower resources and its resulting increase in the cost of services and degradation of quality is but one aspect of the impact of a new project's arrival in an area already adequately served. Nothing in OPI's application reflects an intent to provide some unique or innovative service. The programs it is considering are being offered already in facilities such as West Lake and Florida Hospital. Existing providers are having problems filling their beds. OPI's expert planner claims that its patient days will be derived primarily from growth in the marketplace but admits that there will still be an impact on existing providers. OPI will tap into other facilities' referral sources and will compete for patient referrals. Population statistics do not support the opinion that growth will fill the beds. Growth in the geographical area is slowing, particularly in Orange County. Adult psychiatric services average lengths of stay are decreasing in all of District VII, except in Osceola County, where there is a high Medicare utilization of beds. Between 1984 and 1987, in Orange County, the adult use rate, defined by the local health council as days per thousand population over the age of 15, dropped from 62.55 to 49.89. The trend is toward shorter lengths of stay and more use of outpatient services. This is influenced in part by third-party payment practices. This leaves existing providers as the primary readily available source of patients. OPI candidly admits that it intends to continue its practice of marketing sources of referrals that will provide "better patients". Its limited commitment to indigent care means that the more lucrative patients will be drawn from the existing providers. Existing providers will be pressured to increase their charges or decrease the quality of care. Competition from OPI in this case will degrade, rather than enhance, quality assurance and cost-effectiveness. Other Criteria and Summary of Findings OPI's ability to provide quality of care and its record of such in other facilities was never seriously questioned in this proceeding. The parties have stipulated that a portion of the statutory criteria in Section 381.705(1)(h), F.S., related to the availability of capital and operating funds, and section 381.705(2)(e), F.S. are met or are inapplicable, but other statutory criteria are also either irrelevant or deemed immaterial. These include criteria related to economies from the operation of joint or shared resources, the need for research or educational services, special needs of health maintenance organizations, and others. Despite a showing of numeric need by application of the rule methodology, OPI's project does not meet the occupancy standard in the rule. It is close, if one accepts OPI's contention that data for the 12 month period immediately prior to application must be considered, even though that data is not available at the time the fixed need pool is published. "Close" is not enough in a health planning process that provides for changing needs with frequent periodic batching cycles. If the occupancy rate is close this cycle, it may increase enough to reflect need in the next cycle, or it may decrease enough to unquestionably rule out need. Existing facilities have the ability and capacity to meet the demand for adult short term psychiatric services in the horizon year. An infusion of 60 additional beds in that market will negatively affect the cost of health care either by causing existing facilities to raise their rates or the new facility to raise its rates in order to maintain financial feasibility. OPI's proposed project is not needed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for CON 5544, be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 22nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact. Proposed Findings by OPI Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. 5-6. Included in background statement. 7. Adopted in paragraph 5 and 6. 8-9. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. 14-17. Adopted in summary in paragraph 9. 18-19. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as inconsistent with the weight of evidence. 23-24. Rejected as unnecessary 25-26. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 27-29. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 18 and paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 17, except that the conclusion that the time-period is inappropriate is rejected. Rejected as inconsistent with reason. If the occupancy over 100% should be considered, then all of West Lakes' long term beds should be included in the calculation as those are available for use under West Lake's practice. Rejected as inconsistent with the methodology rule and with reason. Again, the available beds need to be part of the calculation if the patient days are included. Adopted in part in paragraph 22. 35-67. Rejected as unnecessary, argumentative, the testimony of Mark Richardson was not credited as dispositive of the issue of need. 68. Rejected as unnecessary, though immaterial and cumulative. 77. 78. Adopted in summary in paragraph 45. 80. 81-83. Rejected as unnecessary. 84. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 85-89. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. 90. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The testimony regarding difficulties in making referrals to West Lake and Florida Hospital was not materially credited. 91-96. Rejected as unnecessary. Quality of care was not at issue. 97-102. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 103-104. Adopted in summary in paragraph 46. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 38. 107-110. Rejected as unnecessary. 111. Adopted. 111-120. Adopted in summary in paragraph 34, except that OPI failed to demonstrate how it will achieve the occupancy rates it projects when other existing facilities in the area are substantially below those rates. 121-122. Addressed in paragraph 46. 123. Rejected a unnecessary. 124-125. The conclusion that competition will be a positive factor is rejected as contrary to the evidence. 126-136. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 25 and 37. 137-142. Addressed in paragraph 28. OPI's commitment to the underserved is minimal. 143-154. Rejected as unnecessary or argument on the evidence rather than findings of fact. Proposed Findings by HRS Addressed in Background statement. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 27. Adopted in summary in paragraph 28. Rejected as immaterial. 7-9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 27 and paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 26. Adopted in paragraph 13 and paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 17. 15-16. Rejected as argument, although the methodology is substantially adopted. 17. Adopted in paragraph 19 and paragraph 43. 18-20. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as argument. Adopted with qualification in paragraph 32. Rejected as argument. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 28. Rejected as unnecessary. Proposed Findings By West Lake Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 12 and paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 13. 11-13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 18. Adopted in paragraph 22. 17-18. Adopted in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 18. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 22. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 22. Rejected as unnecessary. 27-28. Adopted in paragraph 23. 29-33. Adopted in paragraph 24. 34. Rejected as unnecessary. 35-37. Adopted in paragraph 25. 38. Rejected as unnecessary. 39-40. Adopted in substance in paragraph 26. 41. Adopted in part in paragraph 27. 42-48. Adopted in part in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in paragraph 30 and paragraph 31. 51-56. Rejected as unnecessary. 57. Adopted in paragraph 45. 58-68. Rejected as unnecessary. 69-70. Rejected as irrelevant. 71. Rejected as unnecessary. 72-73. Adopted in substance in paragraph 39. Adopted in substance in paragraph 41. Addressed before, in rulings on Florida Hospital's proposed findings. 76-77. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 42. 82-83. Rejected as a statement of testimony. Adopted in part in paragraph 38. -Adopted in part in paragraph 40. 86-97. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 44. Rejected as unnecessary. 101-104. Rejected as unnecessary or contrary to the evidence. 105-111. Rejected as cumulative. 112-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Proposed Findings By Florida Hospital 1-11. Rejected as unnecessary. The parties agree there is numeric need. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 19. 15-21. Rejected as unnecessary. 22. Adopted in paragraph 43. 23-24. Adopted in paragraph 42. 25-28. Adopted in paragraph 43. 29-30. Rejected as unnecessary. 31. Adopted in paragraph 23. 32-33. Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. 34. Rejected as cumulative. 35-38. Rejected as unnecessary. 39-42. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, except for the reservations regarding meeting occupancy goals and that effect on feasibility. 43. Adopted in paragraph 35. 44-45. Rejected as argument. Adopted in paragraph 39. Adopted in part in paragraph 40. Adopted in paragraph 26 and paragraph 27. Adopted in paragraph 28. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in summary in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 3. 54-55. Adopted in paragraph 42. Adopted In paragraph 43. Adopted in paragraph 44. 59-67. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 68-69. Adopted in paragraph 47. 70-71. Adopted in substance in paragraph 48. 72-79. Rejected as cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor 227 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire Bonner & O'Connell 900 Seventeenth Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20006 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Chris Haughee, Esquire Catherine Peek McEwen, Esquire Moffitt, Hart & Herron, P.A. 216 south Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Steve Boone, Esquire Boone, Boone, Klingbeil, Boone & Roberts 1001 Avenida Del Circo Venice, FL 335955
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should grant the application of the Petitioner, RHPC, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospital (Riverside), for a certificate of need, CON Action No. 6582, for the addition of 31 acute care beds.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant and the Application. The applicant, the Petitioner, RHPC, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospital (Riverside), is a 102 bed acute care hospital 1/ located at 6600 Madison Street, New Port Richey, Florida, in the West Pasco County Subdistrict of HRS Service District 5, which also includes Pinellas County and East Pasco County. Included among its complement of beds are 14 obstetrical (OB) beds. There are no existing pediatric beds. Riverside's application is for a certificate of need to spend approximately $2,000,000 to renovate its existing OB unit, add 14 beds to the OB unit, add 11 medical/surgical beds and add six pediatric beds. The addition of the pediatric unit will be accomplished by relatively minor alterations to existing space and existing beds, and the cost attributable to this phase of the application is negligible. Similarly, the 11 additional med/surg beds will be accomplished by adding beds to existing private rooms, to create semi-private rooms, at a cost of only approximately $44,000. (Gas and electric lines for the additional beds already have been run to the headwall of these rooms and can be connected without difficulty or much expense.) Most of the $2 million total capital expenditure proposed in the application is attributable to the cost of modernizing the OB unit, with the addition of 14 beds in the process. The addition of 14 beds to the unit does not add significantly to what the modernization effort would cost without the addition of the 14 beds. The proposed new OB unit would include private rooms, to go along with the semi-private rooms that make up the existing 14-bed unit. In addition, the proposed modernized 28-bed OB unit would consist of the combined labor/delivery/recovery/post-partum (LDRP) rooms now preferred by most patients. Pertinent State Health Plan Provision. The 1989 State of Florida Health Plan states at the outset of a list of preferences to be utilized in comparing applications for additional acute care beds: No additional acute care beds should generally be approved unless the subdistrict occupancy rate is at or exceeds 75 percent, or, in the event of an existing facility, an applicant shall demonstrate that the occupancy rate for the most recent 12 months is at or exceeds 80 percent. The Need Methodology. Using the F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038 methodology, the district and subdistrict would show numeric need of approximately 201 and 230, respectively. See F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(5). Regardless of the calculated bed need, HRS does not normally approve additional beds in a subdistrict unless the annual average acute care bed occupancy rate is 75 percent or higher during the 12-month base period of July, 1989, through June, 1990. See F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(7)(d). The 670 licensed beds in the West Pasco Subdistrict reported only 68.92% occupancy during the 12- month base period, resulting in no projected need for additional acute care beds in the subdistrict for the applicable 1996 planning horizon. Even when a subdistricts's need for additional acute care beds projected by the methodology is zero, an application by an existing hospital still may be approved where that hospital's annual average occupancy rate exceeds 75 percent for the 12-month base period (again, in this case, from July, 1989, through June, 1990.) See F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(7)(e). During the 12-month base period from July, 1989, through June, 1990, Riverside's occupancy averaged 72.40%, not high enough to be approved under F.A.C. Rule 10-5.038(7)(e). Observation Bed Days. Three types of beds days are included in a category of so-called "outpatient observation bed days." First, "twenty-three hour patients" are patients who are not eligible for inpatient services under the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) criteria for the Medicare program. Second, "observation patients" are similar non-Medicare patients. Third, some outpatients (or ambulatory surgery patients) also use beds for part of a day. With new cost containment and review/regulation developments in hospital care, more patients are spending up to 23 hours in the hospital before a decision is made that further hospitalization in not needed. As a result, "observation" bed use has increased. Outpatient observation services have been recognized and defined by HCFA. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida (the Medicare intermediary) and the Health Care Cost Containment Board (HCCCB) have addressed issues such as reimbursement, billing and reporting of observation beds. Services are provided to "observation bed" patients under doctor's orders, including diagnostic services, observation and monitoring by nursing personnel and/or medical intervention or treatment. Calculation of occupancy rates under the HRS need methodology does not take into account the so-called "observation bed days." 2/ There was no evidence that any part of District V or the West Pasco Subdistrict are inaccessible geographically. Other Need Factors. The evidence showed that there is a seasonal peak utilization and occupancy of acute care beds in District V and in the West Pasco Subdistrict during approximately October or November through March or April each year. This seasonal peak is reflected by the statistics. As previously stated, Riverside's occupancy averaged 72.40% during the period from July, 1989, through June, 1990. During the first quarter of 1990, occupancy was 86.83%. Riverside's average occupancy for calendar year 1990 was 73.87%. For the period from March, 1990, through February, 1991, average occupancy for Riverside's acute care beds was 71.2%. 3/ For the period from March, 1990, through February, 1991, occupancy for Riverside's obstetrics beds was 92.9%. There is no acute care pediatric unit in the West Pasco subdistrict. Subdistrict residents (as well as others in Riverside's general service area) needing level II pediatric services generally go to a Pinellas County or East Pasco County hospital for them. Given the choice, some but not all of these patients likely would prefer to get these services at Riverside, depending primarily on the severity of the particular medical needs. But the evidence did not quantify the number predicted to switch to Riverside. Also, occupancy of pediatric beds in Pasco county was less than 15% during 1987 and 1988. Medical Care for the Poor. The State Health Plan also notes that the uncompensated care burden on hospitals has grown during the 1980s because of a growing number of low-income persons; simultaneously, the proportion of persons covered by Medicaid has dropped. Numerous statewide studies, moreover, have shown that hospitals' uncompensated care is increasing at the same time that their ability to absorb the cost of care is decreasing. Riverside's predecessor bought the hospital from Pasco County in 1982. As a condition to the purchase, Riverside's predecessor agreed to provide Medicaid and indigent care for Pasco County in perpetuity. When Riverside purchased the hospital on December 29, 1983, it assumed the contractual obligation to provide Medicaid and indigent care in perpetuity. Riverside is a disproportionate share provider within the meaning of the State and local health plans. Approximately, 13% of Riverside's total annual patient days are for Medicaid patients. In 1990, 2,647 of Riverside's obstetrical, and 4,272 of its non-obstetrical patient days, were Medicaid. Riverside's charity care deduction from gross patient revenue for fiscal year 1990 was 1.07% of gross patient revenue. Riverside's Medicaid deduction from gross patient revenue for fiscal year 1990 was 5.96% of gross patient revenue. Approximately, 14.8% of Riversides's services go to Medicaid and indigent patients. Although Riverside has only 14% of the beds in the West Pasco subdistrict, it does more than 90% of the non-emergency, non-OB Medicaid care. Approval of the Riverside application would enable Riverside to spread its administrative and overhead costs over a larger base, thereby reducing average charges. Approval of the Riverside application also would make Riverside more profitable and thereby better able to absorb the cost of the Medicaid and indigent care it provides. If Riverside converts existing acute care beds to pediatric or OB beds, it probably would have to squeeze out paying patients during seasonal occupancy peaks, thereby losing more revenue and profits. Competition. If the Riverside application is approved, Riverside's share of the market represented by the West Pasco subdistrict will rise from approximately 14% to approximately 18%. HCA controls the rest of the market. There are no existing OB beds in the West Pasco subdistrict other than at Riverside. The HCA hospital in New Port Richey had an OB unit which it recently abandoned. As a result of the grant of Bayonet Point's application, CON Action No. 6583, with which Riverside had been in direct competition in this application review cycle, Bayonet Point now is approved for a seven-bed OB unit as part of its bed complement. Upgrading its existing OB unit and adding 14 more OB beds will enable Riverside to capture more private paying patients, which will better enable it to compete with the HCA hospitals. At present, Riverside's OB unit is utilized almost exclusively by indigent and Medicaid patients because of the hospital's contract with Pasco County. This unit now is operating at close to absolute capacity. With the upgrades and additional beds, Riverside can work to capture some private pay patients; without them, Bayonet Point will capture the private pay patients. Financial Feasibility. Riverside operated at a deficit from 1983 essentially to the present. By the end of 1990, Riverside had accumulated a deficit of $8.8 million. Riverside's corporate parent, American Healthcare Management, Inc. (AHM), was funding the deficit. From 1985 through December, 1989, AHM was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. During that time period, there was legitimate concern whether AHM would be able to continue to fund Riverside deficits. AHM emerged from bankruptcy in December, 1989, stronger financially. It has since become stronger still. AHM reduced its debt by approximately $88 million. Part of the debt reduction was achieved by the sale of $43 million of underperforming assets. In addition, $45 million of bond debt was exchanged for common stock on September 30, 1991. The interest savings on the bond-for-stock exchange is $6 million a year. As a result, AHM's current debt-to-equity ratio is approximately $160 million to $130 million. AHM's corporate staff has been reduced from about 102 to 65. Its corporate office were transferred from expensive quarters in Dallas, Texas, to less expensive quarters in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Corporate expenses have been greatly reduced as a result. Accounts receivable have been reduced by better collection methods, and the $43 million of assets sold to reduce corporate debt had been underperforming. AHM had $21 million cash and short-term investments as of December 31, 1989. As of the date of the final hearing, it had $18 million cash and short- term investments. Riverside's gross margin (profit) for the first nine months of 1991 was $4 million. After depreciation, amortization, and interest and home office costs, Riverside generated approximately $1.2 million for the first nine months of 1991. Internal cash flow generated by AHM and Riverside would be sufficient to finance Riverside's application project. Since the capital costs of Riverside's proposed project are relatively small, financial feasibility is relatively easy to achieve. Besides costing relatively little, the 31 new beds will not increase intercompany interest or management fees significantly. In addition, the 31 new beds would enable Riverside to better compete for private pay patients. Given the expected utilization of the new beds, the proposed project will be to the financial benefit of the applicant. The pro forma bears this out. It projects 75.11% occupancy for the 31 new beds in the second year of operation (July, 1994, to June, 1995). (This projection does not include expected "observation bed days.") A profit of $2,477,199 for the 31 beds is projected for the second year of operation (not counting any portion of the preexisting intercompany interest or management fees).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that HRS enter a final order denying the Riverside application for a certificate of need, CON Action No. 6582, for the addition of 31 acute care beds. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of January, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, LMHS The applicant, LMHS, is a public, not-for-profit health care system, created in 1968 by special act of the Legislature. A ten-member publicly elected board of directors is responsible for overseeing LMHS on behalf of the citizens of Lee County. LMHS does not have taxing power. LMHS is the dominant provider of hospital services in Lee County. LMHS operates four hospital facilities under three separate hospital licenses. The four hospital campuses are dispersed throughout Lee County: borrowing the sub-county area descriptors adopted by LMHS’s health planning expert, LMHS operates one hospital in northwest Lee County, one hospital in central Lee County, and two hospitals in south Lee County.1/ At present, the four hospital campuses are licensed to operate a total of 1,423 hospital beds. The only non-LMHS hospital in Lee County is 88-bed Lehigh Regional Medical Center (Lehigh Regional) in northeast Lee County, owned and operated by a for-profit hospital corporation, Health Management Associates, Inc. (HMA). LMHS has a best-practice strategy of increasing and concentrating clinical specialties at each of its existing hospitals. The LMHS board has already approved which specialty service lines will be the focus at each of its four hospitals. Although there is still some duplication of specialty areas, LMHS has tried to move more to clinical specialization concentrated at a specific hospital to lower costs, better utilize resources, and also to concentrate talent and repetitions, leading to improved clinical outcomes. Currently licensed to operate 415 hospital beds, Lee Memorial Hospital (Lee Memorial) is located in downtown Fort Myers in central Lee County. The hospital was initially founded in 1916 and established at its current location in the 1930s. In the 1960s, a five-story clinical tower was constructed on the campus, to which three more stories were added in the 1970s. The original 1930s building was demolished and its site became surface parking. Today, Lee Memorial provides a full array of acute care services, plus clinical specialties in such areas as orthopedics, neurology, oncology, and infectious diseases. Lee Memorial’s licensed bed complement includes 15 adult inpatient psychiatric beds (not in operation), and 60 beds for comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR), a tertiary health service.2/ Lee Memorial is a designated stroke center, meaning it is a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport stroke patients, bypassing any closer hospital that lacks stroke center designation. Lee Memorial operates the only verified level II adult trauma center in the seven-county region designated AHCA district 8. Lee Memorial also is home to a new residency program for medical school graduates. At its peak, Lee Memorial operated as many as 600 licensed beds at the single downtown Fort Myers location. In 1990, when hospital beds were still regulated under the CON program, Lee Memorial transferred its right to operate 220 beds to establish a new hospital facility to the south, HealthPark Medical Center (HealthPark). One reason to shift some of its regulated hospital beds to the south was because of the growing population in the southern half of Lee County. Another reason was to ensure a paying patient population by moving beds away from Lee Memorial to a more affluent area. That way, LMHS would have better system balance, and be better able to bear the financial burden of caring for disproportionately high numbers of Medicaid and charity care patients at the downtown safety-net hospital. That was a reasonable and appropriate objective. HealthPark, located in south Lee County ZIP code 33908, to the south and a little to the west of Lee Memorial, now operates 368 licensed beds--320 general acute care and 48 neonatal intensive care beds. HealthPark’s specialty programs and services include cardiac care, open heart surgery, and urology. HealthPark is a designated STEMI3/ (heart attack) center, a destination to which EMS providers generally seek to transport heart attack patients, bypassing any closer hospital lacking STEMI center designation. HealthPark also concentrates in specialty women’s and children’s services, offering obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, perinatal intensive care, and pediatrics. HealthPark is a state-designated children’s cancer center. HealthPark’s open heart surgery, neonatal and perinatal intensive care, and pediatric oncology services are all tertiary health services. In 1996, LMHS acquired its third hospital, Cape Coral Medical Center (Cape Coral), from another entity.4/ The acquisition of Cape Coral was another step in furtherance of the strategy to improve LMHS’s overall payer mix by establishing hospitals in affluent areas. Cape Coral is located in northwest Lee County, and is licensed to operate 291 general acute care beds. Cape Coral’s specialty concentrations include obstetrics, orthopedics, gastroenterology, urology, and stroke treatment. Cape Coral recently achieved primary stroke center designation, making it an appropriate destination for EMS transport of stroke patients, according to Lee County EMS transport guidelines. The newest LMHS hospital, built in 2007-2008 and opened in 2009, is Gulf Coast Medical Center (Gulf Coast) in south Lee County ZIP code 33912.5/ With 349 licensed beds, Gulf Coast offers tertiary services including kidney transplantation and open heart surgery, and specialty services including obstetrics, stroke treatment, surgical oncology, and neurology. Gulf Coast is both a designated primary stroke center and a STEMI center. NCH NCH is a not-for-profit system operating two hospital facilities with a combined 715 licensed beds in Collier County, directly to the south of Lee County. Naples Community Hospital (Naples Community) is in downtown Naples. NCH North Naples Hospital Campus (North Naples) is located in the northernmost part of Collier County, near the Collier-Lee County line.6/ The Petitioner in this case is NCH doing business as North Naples. North Naples is licensed to operate 262 acute care beds. It provides an array of acute care hospital services, specialty services including obstetrics and pediatrics, and tertiary health services including neonatal intensive care and CMR. AHCA AHCA is the state health planning agency charged with administering the CON program pursuant to the Health Facility and Services Development Act, sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes (2013).7/ AHCA is responsible for the coordinated planning of health care services in the state. To carry out its responsibilities for health planning and CON determinations, AHCA maintains a comprehensive health care database, with information that health care facilities are required to submit, such as utilization data. See § 408.033(3), Fla. Stat. AHCA conducts its health planning and CON review based on “health planning service district[s]” defined by statute. See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat. Relevant in this case is district 8, which includes Sarasota, DeSoto, Charlotte, Lee, Glades, Hendry, and Collier Counties. Additionally, by rule, AHCA has adopted acute care sub-districts, originally utilized in conjunction with an acute care bed need methodology codified as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.038. The acute care bed need rule was repealed in 2005, following the deregulation of acute care beds from CON review. However, AHCA has maintained its acute care sub-district rule, in which Lee County is designated sub-district 8-5. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-2.100(3)(h)5. The Proposed Project LMHS proposes to establish a new 80-bed general hospital on the southeast corner of U.S. Highway 41 and Coconut Road in Bonita Springs (ZIP code 34135),8/ in south Lee County. The CON application described the hospital services to be offered at the proposed new hospital in only the most general fashion--medical- surgical services, emergency services, intensive care, and telemetry services. Also planned for the proposed hospital are outpatient care, community education, and chronic care management --all non-hospital, non-CON-regulated services. At hearing, LMHS did not elaborate on the planned hospital services for the proposed new facility. Instead, no firm decisions have been made by the health system regarding what types of services will be offered at the new hospital. The proposed site consists of three contiguous parcels, totaling approximately 31 acres. LMHS purchased a 21-acre parcel in 2004, with a view to building a hospital there someday. LMHS later added to its holdings when additional parcels became available. At present, the site’s development of regional impact (DRI) development order does not permit a hospital, but would allow the establishment of a freestanding emergency department. The proposed hospital site is adjacent to the Bonita Community Health Center (BCHC). Jointly owned by LMHS and NCH, BCHC is a substantial health care complex described by LMHS President James Nathan as a “hospital without walls.” This 100,000 square-foot complex includes an urgent care center, ambulatory surgery center, and physicians’ offices. A wide variety of outpatient health care services are provided within the BCHC complex, including radiology/diagnostic imaging, endoscopy, rehabilitation, pain management, and lab services. Although LMHS purchased the adjacent parcels with the intent of establishing a hospital there someday, representatives of LMHS expressed their doubt that “someday” has arrived; they have candidly admitted that this application may be premature. CON Application Filing LMHS did not intend to file a CON application when it did, in the first hospital-project review cycle of 2013. LMHS did not file a letter of intent (LOI) by the initial LOI deadline to signify its intent to file a CON application. However, LMHS’s only Lee County hospital competitor, HMA, filed an LOI on the deadline day. LMHS learned that the project planned by HMA was to replace Lehigh Regional with a new hospital, which would be relocated to south Lee County, a little to the north of the Estero/Bonita Springs area. LMHS was concerned that if the HMA application went forward and was approved, that project would block LMHS’s ability to pursue a hospital in Bonita Springs for many years to come. Therefore, in reaction to HMA’s LOI, LMHS filed a “grace period” LOI, authorized under AHCA’s rules, to submit a competing proposal for a new hospital in south Lee County. But for the HMA LOI, there would have been no grace period for a competing proposal, and LMHS would not have been able to apply when it did. Two weeks later, on the initial application filing deadline, LMHS submitted a “shell” application. LMHS proceeded to quickly prepare the bulk of its application to file five weeks later by the omissions response deadline of April 10, 2013. Shortly before the omissions response deadline, Mr. Nathan met with Jeffrey Gregg, who is in charge of the CON program as director of AHCA’s Florida Center for Health Information and Policy Analysis, and Elizabeth Dudek, AHCA Secretary, to discuss the LMHS application. Mr. Nathan told the AHCA representatives that LMHS was not really ready to file a CON application, but felt cornered and forced into it to respond to the HMA proposal. Mr. Nathan also discussed with AHCA representatives the plan to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial, but AHCA told Mr. Nathan not to make such a proposal. Since beds are no longer subject to CON regulation, hospitals are free to add or delicense beds as they deem appropriate, and therefore, an offer to delicense beds adds nothing to a CON proposal. LMHS’s CON application was timely filed on the omissions deadline. A major focus of the application was on why LMHS’s proposal was better than the expected competing HMA proposal. However, HMA did not follow through on its LOI by filing a competing CON application. The LMHS CON application met the technical content requirements for a general hospital CON application, including an assessment of need for the proposed project. LMHS highlighted the following themes to show need for its proposed new hospital: South Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with an older population; by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population. The Estero/Bonita Springs community strongly supports the proposed new hospital. Approval of the proposed new hospital “will significantly reduce travel times for the service area’s residents and will thereby significantly improve access to acute care services,” as shown by estimated travel times to local hospitals for residents in the proposed primary service area and by Lee County EMS transport logs. LMHS will agree to a CON condition to delicense 80 beds at Lee Memorial, which are underutilized, so that there will be no net addition of acute care beds to the sub-district’s licensed bed complement. AHCA’s Preliminary Review and Denial AHCA conducted its preliminary review of the CON application in accordance with its standard procedures. As part of the preliminary review process for general hospital applications, the CON law now permits existing health care facilities whose established programs may be substantially affected by a proposed project to submit a detailed statement in opposition. Indeed, such a detailed statement is a condition precedent to the existing provider being allowed to participate as a party in any subsequent administrative proceedings conducted with respect to the CON application. See § 408.037(2), Fla. Stat. North Naples timely filed a detailed statement in opposition to LMHS’s proposed new hospital. LMHS timely filed a response to North Naples’ opposition submittal, pursuant to the same law. After considering the CON application, the North Naples opposition submittal, and the LMHS response, AHCA prepared its SAAR in accordance with its standard procedures. A first draft of the SAAR was prepared by the CON reviewer; the primary editor of the SAAR was AHCA CON unit manager James McLemore; and then a second edit was done by Mr. Gregg. Before the SAAR was finalized, Mr. Gregg met with the AHCA Secretary to discuss the proposed decision. The SAAR sets forth AHCA’s preliminary findings and preliminary decision to deny the LMHS application. Mr. Gregg testified at hearing as AHCA’s representative, as well as in his capacity as an expert in health planning and CON review. Through Mr. Gregg’s testimony, AHCA reaffirmed its position in opposition to the LMHS application, and Mr. Gregg offered his opinions to support that position. Statutory and Rule Review Criteria The framework for consideration of LMHS’s proposed project is dictated by the statutory and rule criteria that apply to general hospital CON applications. The applicable statutory review criteria, as amended in 2008 for general hospital CON applications, are as follows: The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed. The availability, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the service district of the applicant. * * * (e) The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. * * * (g) The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost-effectiveness. * * * (i) The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. § 408.035(1), Fla. Stat.; § 408.035(2), Fla. Stat. (identifying review criteria that apply to general hospital applications). AHCA has not promulgated a numeric need methodology to calculate need for new hospital facilities. In the absence of a numeric need methodology promulgated by AHCA for the project at issue, Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2)(e) applies. This rule provides that the applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory and rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.030 also applies. This rule elaborates on “health care access criteria” to be considered in reviewing CON applications, with a focus on the needs of medically underserved groups such as low income persons. LMHS’s Needs Assessment LMHS set forth its assessment of need for the proposed new hospital, highlighting the population demographics of the area proposed to be served. Theme: South Lee County’s substantial population The main theme of LMHS’s need argument is that south Lee County “should have its own acute care hospital” because it is a fast-growing area with a substantial and older population. (LMHS Exh. 3, p. 37). LMHS asserts that south Lee County’s population is sufficient to demonstrate the need for a new hospital because “by 2018, the southern ZIP codes of Lee County will contain nearly a third of the county’s total population.” Id. LMHS identified eight ZIP codes--33908, 33912, 33913, 33928, 33931, 33967, 34134, and 34135--that constitute “south Lee County.” (LMHS Exh. 3, Table 4). Claritas population projections, reasonably relied on by the applicant, project that by 2018 these eight ZIP codes will have a total population of 200,492 persons, approximately 29 percent of the projected population of 687,795 for all of Lee County. The age 65-and-older population in south Lee County is projected to be 75,150, approximately 40 percent of the projected 65+ population of 185,655 for all of Lee County. A glaring flaw in LMHS’s primary need theme is that the eight-ZIP-code “south Lee County” identified by LMHS is not without its own hospital. That area already has two of the county’s five existing hospitals: Gulf Coast and HealthPark. In advancing its need argument, LMHS selectively uses different meanings of “south Lee County.” When describing the “south Lee County” that deserves a hospital of its own, LMHS means the local Estero/Bonita Springs community in and immediately surrounding the proposed hospital site in the southernmost part of south Lee County. However, when offering up a sufficient population to demonstrate need for a new hospital, “south Lee County” expands to encompass an area that appears to be half, if not more, of the entire county. The total population of the Estero/Bonita Springs community is 76,753, projected to grow to 83,517 by 2018--much more modest population numbers compared to those highlighted by the applicant for the expanded version of south Lee County. While the rate of growth for Estero/Bonita Springs is indeed fast compared to the state and county growth rates, this observation is misleading because the actual numbers are not large. LMHS also emphasizes the larger proportion of elderly in the Estero/Bonita Springs community, which is also expected to continue to grow at a fast clip. Although no specifics were offered, it is accepted as a generic proposition that elderly persons are more frequent consumers of acute care hospital services. By the same token, elderly persons who require hospitalization tend to be sicker, and to present greater risks of potential complications from comorbidities, than non-elderly patients. As a result, for example, as discussed below, Lee County EMS’s emergency transport guidelines steer certain elderly patients to hospitals with greater breadth of services than the very basic hospital planned by LMHS, “as a reasonable precaution.” Projections of a Well-Utilized Proposed Hospital Mr. Davidson, LMHS’s health planning consultant, was provided with the proposed hospital’s location and number of beds, and was asked to develop the need assessment and projections. No evidence was offered regarding who determined that the proposed hospital should have 80 beds, or how that determination was made. Mr. Davidson set about to define the proposed primary and secondary service areas, keeping in mind that section 408.037(2) now requires a general hospital CON application to specifically identify, by ZIP codes, the primary service area from which the proposed hospital is expected to receive 75 percent of its patients, and the secondary service area from which 25 percent of the hospital’s patients are expected. Mr. Davidson selected six ZIP codes for the primary service area. He included the three ZIP codes comprising the Estero/Bonita Springs community. He also included two ZIP codes that are closer to existing hospitals than to the proposed site, according to the drive-time information he compiled. In addition, he included one ZIP code in which there is already a hospital (Gulf Coast, in 33912). Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, primary service area was not persuasive;9/ the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. Mr. Davidson selected six more ZIP codes for the secondary service area. These include: two south Lee County ZIP codes that are HealthPark’s home ZIP code (33908) and a ZIP code to the west of HealthPark (33931); three central Lee County ZIP codes to the north of HealthPark and Gulf Coast; and one Collier County ZIP code that is North Naples’ home ZIP code. Mr. Davidson’s opinion that this was a reasonable, and not overly aggressive, secondary service area was not persuasive; the criticisms by the other expert health planning witnesses were more persuasive and are credited. As noted above, the existing LMHS hospitals provide tertiary-level care and a number of specialty service lines and designations that have not been planned for the proposed new hospital. Conversely, there are no services proposed for the new hospital that are not already provided by the existing LMHS hospitals. In the absence of evidence that the proposed new hospital will offer services not available at closer hospitals, it is not reasonable to project that any appreciable numbers of patients will travel farther, and in some instances, bypass one or more larger existing hospitals with greater breadth of services, to obtain the same services at the substantially smaller proposed new hospital. As aptly observed by AHCA’s representative, Mr. Gregg, the evidence to justify such an ambitious service area for a small hospital providing basic services was lacking: So if we were to have been given more detail[:] here’s the way we’re going to fit this into our system, here’s -- you know, here’s why we can design this service area as big as we did, even though it would require a lot of people to drive right by HealthPark or right by Gulf Coast to go to this tiny basic hospital for some reason. I mean, there are fundamental basics about this that just make us scratch our head. (Tr. 1457). The next step after defining the service area was to develop utilization projections, based on historic utilization data for service area residents who obtained the types of services to be offered by the proposed hospital. In this case, the utilization projections suffer from a planning void. Mr. Nathan testified that no decisions have been made regarding what types of services, other than general medical- surgical services, will be provided at the proposed new hospital. In lieu of information regarding the service lines actually planned for the proposed hospital, Mr. Davidson used a subtractive process, eliminating “15 or so” service lines that the proposed hospital either “absolutely wasn’t going to provide,” or that, in his judgment, a small hospital of this type would not provide. The service lines he excluded were: open heart surgery; trauma; neonatal intensive care; inpatient psychiatric, rehabilitation, and substance abuse; and unnamed “others.” His objective was to “narrow the scope of available admissions down to those that a smaller hospital could reasonably aspire to care for.” (Tr. 671-672). That objective is different from identifying the types of services expected because they have been planned for this particular proposed hospital. The testimony of NCH’s health planner, as well as Mr. Gregg, was persuasive on the point that Mr. Davidson’s approach was over-inclusive. The historic data he used included a number of service lines that are not planned for the proposed hospital and, thus, should have been subtracted from the historic utilization base. These include clinical specialties that are the focus of other LMHS hospitals, such as infectious diseases, neurology, neurosurgery, orthopedics, and urology; cardiac care, such as cardiac catheterization and angioplasty that are not planned for the proposed hospital; emergency stroke cases that will be directed to designated stroke centers; pediatric cases that will be referred to HealthPark; and obstetrics, which is not contemplated for the proposed hospital according to the more credible evidence.10/ Mr. Davidson’s market share projections suffer from some of the same flaws as the service area projections: there is no credible evidence to support the assumption that the small proposed new hospital, which has planned to offer only the most basic hospital services, will garner substantial market shares in ZIP codes that are closer to larger existing hospitals providing a greater breadth of services. In addition, variations in market share projections by ZIP code raise questions that were not adequately explained.11/ Overall, the “high-level” theme offered by LMHS’s health planner--that it is unnecessary to know what types of services will be provided at the new hospital in order to reasonably project utilization and market share--was not persuasive. While it is possible that utilization of the proposed new hospital would be sufficient to suggest it is filling a need, LMHS did not offer credible evidence that that is so. Bed Need Methodology for Proposed Service Area Mr. Davidson projected bed need for the proposed service area based on the historic utilization by residents of the 12 ZIP codes in the service lines remaining after his subtractive process, described above. Other than using an over-inclusive base (as described above), Mr. Davidson followed a reasonable approach to determine the average daily census generated by the proposed service area residents, and then applying a 75 percent occupancy standard to convert the average daily census into the number of beds supported by that population. The results of this methodology show that utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code primary service area would support 163 hospital beds; and utilization generated by residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area would support 225 beds in the secondary service area. The total gross bed need for the proposed service area adds up to 388 beds. However, the critical next step was missing: subtract from the gross number of needed beds the number of existing beds, to arrive at the net bed need (or surplus). In the primary service area, 163 beds are needed, but there are already 349 beds at Gulf Coast. Thus, in the primary service area, there is a surplus of 186 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. In the secondary service area, 225 beds are needed, but there are already 320 acute care beds at HealthPark and 262 acute care beds at North Naples. Thus, in the secondary service area, there is a surplus of 357 beds, according to the applicant’s methodology. While it is true that Gulf Coast and HealthPark use some of their beds to provide some tertiary and specialty services that were subtracted out of this methodology, and all three hospitals presumably provide services to residents outside the proposed service area, Mr. Davidson made no attempt to measure these components. Instead, the LMHS bed need methodology ignores completely the fact that there is substantial existing bed capacity--931 acute care beds--within the proposed service area. Availability and Utilization of Existing Hospitals LMHS offered utilization data for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2012, for Lee County hospitals. Cape Coral’s average annual occupancy rate was 57.6 percent; HealthPark’s was 77.5 percent; Lee Memorial’s was 55.9 percent; Lehigh Regional’s was 44 percent; and Gulf Coast’s was 79.8 percent. Mr. Davidson acknowledged that a reasonable occupancy standard to plan for a small hospital the size of the proposed hospital is 75 percent. For a larger operational hospital, 80 percent is a good standard to use, indicating it is well-utilized. Judged by these standards, only HealthPark and Gulf Coast come near the standard for a well-utilized hospital. As noted in the CON application, these annual averages do not reflect the higher utilization during peak season. According to the application, HealthPark’s occupancy was 88.2 percent and Gulf Coast’s was 86.8 percent for the peak quarter of January-March 2012. LMHS did not present utilization information for North Naples, even though that hospital is closest to the proposed hospital site and is within the proposed service area targeted by the applicant. For the same 12-month period used for the LMHS hospitals, North Naples’ average annual occupancy rate was 50.97 percent and for the January-March 2012 “peak season” quarter, North Naples’ occupancy was 60.68 percent. At the final hearing, LMHS did not present more recent utilization data, choosing instead to rely on the older information in the application. Based on the record evidence, need is not demonstrated by reference to the availability and utilization of existing hospitals in the proposed service area or in the sub-district. Community Support LMHS argued that the strong support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community should be viewed as evidence of need for the proposed new hospital. As summarized in the SAAR, approximately 2,200 letters of support were submitted by local government entities and elected officials, community groups, and area residents, voicing their support for the proposed hospital. LMHS chose not to submit these voluminous support letters in the record. The AHCA reviewer noted in the SAAR that none of the support letters documented instances in which residents of the proposed service area needed acute care hospital services but were unable to obtain them, or suffered poor or undesirable health outcomes due to the current availability of hospital services. Two community members testified at the final hearing to repeat the theme of support by Estero/Bonita Springs community residents and groups. These witnesses offered anecdotal testimony about traffic congestion during season, population growth, and development activity they have seen or heard about. They acknowledged the role their community organization has played in advocating for a neighborhood hospital, including developing and disseminating form letters for persons to express their support. Consistent with the AHCA reviewer’s characterization of the support letters, neither witness attested to any experiences needing acute care hospital services that they were unable to obtain, or any experiences in which they had poor or undesirable outcomes due to the currently available hospital services. There was no such evidence offered by any witness at the final hearing. Mr. Gregg characterized the expression of community support by the Estero/Bonita Springs community as typical “for an upper income, kind of retiree-oriented community where, number one, people anticipate needing to use hospitals, and number two, people have more time on their hands to get involved with things like this.” (Tr. 1433). Mr. Gregg described an extreme example of community support for a prior new hospital CON application, in which AHCA received 21,000 letters of support delivered in two chartered buses that were filled with community residents who wanted to meet with AHCA representatives. Mr. Gregg identified the project as the proposed hospital for North Port, which was ultimately denied following an administrative hearing. In the North Port case, the Administrative Law Judge made this apt observation with regard to the probative value of the overwhelming community support offered there: “A community’s desire for a new hospital does not mean there is a ‘need’ for a new hospital. Under the CON program, the determination of need for a new hospital must be based upon sound health planning principles, not the desires of a particular local government or its citizens.” Manatee Memorial Hospital, L.P. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., et al., Case Nos. 04-2723CON, 04-3027CON, and 04- 3147CON (Fla. DOAH Dec. 15, 2005; Fla. AHCA April 11, 2006), RO at 26, ¶ 104, adopted in FO. That finding, which was adopted by AHCA in its final order, remains true today, and is adopted herein. Access The statutory review criteria consider access issues from two opposing perspectives: from the perspective of the proposed project, consideration is given to the extent to which the proposal will enhance access to health care services for the applicant’s service district; without the proposed project, consideration is given to the accessibility of existing providers of the health care services proposed by the applicant. Addressing this two-part access inquiry, LMHS contends that the proposed hospital would significantly reduce travel times and significantly enhance access to acute care services. Three kinds of access are routinely considered in CON cases: geographic access, in this case the drive times by individuals to hospitals; emergency access, i.e., the time it takes for emergency ground transport (ambulances) to deliver patients to hospitals; and economic access, i.e., the extent to which hospital services are provided to Medicaid and charity care patients. Geographic Access (drive times to hospitals) For nearly all residents of the applicable service district, district 8, the proposed new hospital was not shown to enhance access to health care at all. The same is true for nearly all residents of sub-district 8-5, Lee County. LMHS was substantially less ambitious in its effort to show access enhancement, limiting its focus on attempting to prove that access to acute care services would be enhanced for residents of the primary service area. LMHS did not attempt to prove that there would be any access enhancement to acute care services for residents of the six-ZIP code secondary service area. As set forth in the CON application, Mr. Davidson used online mapping software to estimate the drive time from each ZIP code in the primary service area to the four existing LMHS hospitals, the two NCH hospitals, and another hospital in north Collier County, Physicians Regional-Pine Ridge. The drive-time information offered by the applicant showed the following: the drive time from ZIP code 33912 was less to three different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; the drive time from ZIP code 33913 was less to two different existing LMHS hospitals than to the proposed new hospital; and the drive time from ZIP code 33967 was less to one existing LMHS hospital than to the proposed hospital site. Thus, according to LMHS’s own information, drive times would not be reduced at all for three of the six ZIP codes in the primary service area. Not surprisingly, according to LMHS’s information, the three Estero/Bonita Springs ZIP codes are shown to have slightly shorter drive times to the proposed neighborhood hospital than to any existing hospital. However, the same information also suggests that those residents already enjoy very reasonable access of 20-minutes’ drive time or less to one or more existing hospitals: the drive time from ZIP code 33928 is between 14 and 20 minutes to three different existing hospitals; the drive time from ZIP code 34134 is between 18 and 20 minutes to two different existing hospitals; and the drive time from ZIP code 34135 is 19 minutes to one existing hospital. In terms of the extent of drive time enhancement, the LMHS information shows that drive time would be shortened from 14 minutes to seven minutes for ZIP code 33928; from 18 minutes to 12 minutes for ZIP code 34134; and from 19 minutes to 17 minutes for ZIP code 34135. There used to be an access standard codified in the (now-repealed) acute care bed need rule, providing that acute care services should be accessible within a 30-minute drive time under normal conditions to 90 percent of the service area’s population. Mr. Davidson’s opinion is that the former rule’s 30-minute drive time standard remains a reasonable access standard for acute care services. Here, LMHS’s drive time information shows very reasonable access now, meeting an even more rigorous drive-time standard of 20 minutes. The establishment of a new hospital facility will always enhance geographic access by shortening drive times for some residents. For example, if LMHS’s proposed hospital were established, another proposed hospital could demonstrate enhanced access by reducing drive times from seven minutes to four minutes for residents of Estero’s ZIP code 33928. But the question is not whether there is any enhanced access, no matter how insignificant. Instead, the appropriate consideration is the “extent” of enhanced access for residents of the service district or sub-district. Here, the only travel time information offered by LMHS shows nothing more than insignificant reductions of already reasonable travel times for residents of only three of six ZIP codes in the primary service area. The drive-time information offered in the application and at hearing was far from precise, but it was the only evidence offered by the applicant in an attempt to prove its claim that there would be a significant reduction in drive times for residents of the primary service area ZIP codes. No travel time expert or traffic engineer offered his or her expertise to the subject of geographic accessibility in this case. No evidence was presented regarding measured traffic conditions or planned roadway improvements. Anecdotal testimony regarding “congested” roads during “season” was general in nature and insufficient to prove that there is not reasonable access now to basic acute care hospital services for all residents of the proposed service area. The proposed new hospital is not needed to address a geographic access problem. Consideration of the extent of access enhancement does not weigh in favor of the proposed new hospital. Emergency Access LMHS also sought to establish that emergency access via EMS ambulance transport was becoming problematic during the season because of traffic congestion. In its CON application, LMHS offered Lee County EMS transport logs as evidence that ambulance transport times from the Estero/Bonita Springs community to an existing hospital were higher during season than in the off-season months. LMHS represented in its CON application that the voluminous Lee County EMS transport logs show average transport times of over 22 minutes from Bonita Springs to a hospital in March 2012 compared to 15 minutes for June 2012, and average transport times of just under 22 minutes from Estero to a hospital in March 2012 compared to over 17 minutes for June 2012. LMHS suggested that these times were not reasonable because these were all emergency transports at high speeds with flashing lights and sirens. LMHS did not prove the accuracy of this statement. The Lee County EMS ordinance limits the use of sirens and flashing lights to emergency transports, defined to mean transports of patients with life- or limb-threatening conditions. According to Lee County EMS Deputy Chief Panem, 90 to 95 percent of ambulance transports do not involve such conditions. Contrary to the conclusion that LMHS urges should be drawn from the EMS transport logs, the ambulance transport times summarized by LMHS in its application do not demonstrate unreasonable emergency access for residents of Estero/Bonita Springs. The logs do not demonstrate an emergency access problem for the local residents during the season, as contended by LMHS; nor did LMHS offer sufficient evidence to prove that the proposed new hospital would materially improve ambulance transport times. LMHS’s opinion that the ambulance logs show a seasonal emergency access problem for Estero/Bonita Springs residents cannot be credited unless the travel times on the logs reflect patient transports to the nearest hospital, such that establishing a new hospital in Bonita Springs would result in faster ambulance transports for Estero/Bonita Springs residents. Deputy Chief Panem testified that ambulance transport destination is dictated in the first instance by patient choice. In addition, for the “most serious calls,” the destination is dictated by emergency transport guidelines with a matrix identifying the most “appropriate” hospitals to direct patients. For example, as Deputy Chief Panem explained: In the case of a stroke or heart attack, we want them to go to a stroke facility or a heart attack facility[;] or trauma, we have a trauma center in Lee County as well . . . Lee Memorial Hospital downtown is a level II trauma center. (Tr. 378). The emergency transport matrix identifies the hospitals qualified to handle emergency heart attack, stroke, or trauma patients. In addition, the matrix identifies the “most appropriate facility” for emergency pediatrics, obstetrics, pediatric orthopedic emergencies, and other categories involving the “most serious calls.” Of comparable size to the proposed new hospital, 88-bed Lehigh Regional is not identified as an “appropriate facility” to transport patients with any of the serious conditions shown in the matrix. Similar to Lehigh Regional, the slightly smaller proposed new hospital is not expected to be identified as an appropriate facility destination for patients with any of the conditions designated in the Lee County EMS emergency transport matrix. The Lee County EMS transport guidelines clarify that all trauma alert patients “will be” transported to Lee Memorial as the Level II Trauma Center. In addition, the guidelines provide as follows: “Non-trauma alert patients with a high index of suspicion (elderly, etc.) should preferentially be transported to the Trauma Center as a reasonable precaution.” (emphasis added). For the elderly, then, a condition that would not normally be considered one of the most serious cases to be steered to the most appropriate hospital may be reclassified as such, as a reasonable precaution because the patient is elderly. The Lee County EMS transport logs do not reflect the reason for the chosen destination. The patients may have requested transport to distant facilities instead of to the nearest facilities. Patients with the most serious conditions may have accepted the advice of ambulance crews that they should be transported to the “most appropriate facility” with special resources to treat their serious conditions; or those patients may have been unable to express their choice due to the seriousness of their condition, in which case the patients would be taken to the most appropriate facility, bypassing closer facilities. Elderly patients may have been convinced to take the reasonable precaution to go to an appropriate facility even if their condition did not fall into the most serious categories. Since the transport times on the EMS logs do not necessarily reflect transport times to the closest hospital, it is not reasonable to conclude that the transport times would be shorter if there were an even closer hospital, particularly where the closer hospital is not likely to be designated as an appropriate destination in the transport guidelines matrix. The most serious cases, categorized in the EMS transport matrix, are the ones for which minutes matter. For those cases, a new hospital in Estero/Bonita Springs, which has not planned to be a STEMI receiving center, a stroke center, or a trauma center, is not going to enhance access to emergency care, even for the neighborhood residents. The evidence at hearing did not establish that ambulance transport times are excessive or cause an emergency access problem now.12/ In fact, Deputy Chief Panem did not offer the opinion, or offer any evidence to prove, that the drive time for ambulances transporting patients to area hospitals is unreasonable or contrary to any standard for reasonable emergency access. Instead, Lee County EMS recently opposed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity by the Bonita Springs Fire District to provide emergency ground transportation to hospitals, because Lee County EMS believed then, and believes now, that it is providing efficient and effective emergency transport services to the Bonita Springs area residents. At hearing, LMHS tried a different approach by attempting to prove an emergency access problem during season, not because of the ambulance drive times, but because of delays at the emergency departments themselves after patients are transported there. The new focus at hearing was on EMS “offload” times, described as the time between ambulance arrival at the hospital and the time the ambulance crews hand over responsibility for a patient to the emergency department staff. According to Deputy Chief Panem, Lee County hospitals rarely go on “bypass,” a status that informs EMS providers not to transport patients to a hospital because additional emergency patients cannot be accommodated. No “bypass” evidence was offered, suggesting that “bypass” status is not a problem in Lee County and that Lee County emergency departments are available to EMS providers. Deputy Chief Panem also confirmed that North Naples does not go on bypass. The North Naples emergency department consistently has been available to receive patients transported by Lee County EMS ambulances, during seasonal and off- season months. Offload times are a function of a variety of factors. Reasons for delays in offloading patients can include inadequate capacity or functionality of the emergency department, or inadequate staffing in the emergency department such that there may be empty treatment bays, but the bays cannot be filled with patients because there is no staff to tend to the patients. Individual instances of offload delays can occur when emergency department personnel prioritize incoming cases, and less-emergent cases might have to wait while more-emergent cases are taken first, even if they arrived later. Offload times are also a function of “throughput” issues. Approximately 20 to 25 percent of emergency department patients require admission to the hospital, but there can be delays in the admission process, causing the patient to be held in a treatment bay that could otherwise be filled by the next emergency patient. There can be many reasons for throughput delays, including the lack of an available acute care bed, or inadequate staffing that prevents available acute care beds from being filled. No evidence was offered to prove the actual causes of any offload delays. Moreover, the evidence failed to establish that offload times were unreasonable or excessive. Deputy Chief Panem offered offload time data summaries that reflect very good performance by LMHS hospitals and by North Naples. Deputy Chief Panem understandably advocates the shortest possible offload time, so that Lee County EMS ambulances are back in service more quickly. Lee County EMS persuaded the LMHS emergency departments to agree to a goal for offload times of 30 minutes or less 90 percent of the time, and that is the goal he tracks. Both Lee Memorial and North Naples have consistently met or exceeded that goal in almost every month over the last five years, including during peak seasonal months. Cape Coral and Gulf Coast sometimes fall below the goal in peak seasonal months, but the evidence did not establish offload times that are excessive or unreasonable during peak months. HealthPark is the one LMHS hospital that appears to consistently fall below Lee County EMS’s offload time goal; in peak seasonal months, HealthPark’s offload times were less than 30 minutes in approximately 70 percent of the cases. No evidence was offered to prove the extent of offload delays at HealthPark for the other 30 percent of emergency cases, nor was evidence offered to prove the extent of offload delays at any other hospital. Deputy Chief Panem referred anecdotally to offload times that can sometimes reach as high as two to three hours during season, but he did not provide specifics. Without documentation of the extent and magnitude of offload delays, it is impossible to conclude that they are unreasonable or excessive. There is no persuasive evidence suggesting that this facet of emergency care would be helped by approval of the proposed new hospital, especially given the complicated array of possible reasons for each case in which there was a delayed offload.13/ Staffing/professional coverage issues likely would be exacerbated by approving another hospital venue for LMHS. Pure physical plant issues, such as emergency department capacity and acute care bed availability, might be helped to some degree, at least in theory, by a new hospital, but to a lesser degree than directly addressing any capacity issues at the existing hospitals. For example, HealthPark’s emergency department has served as a combined destination for a wide array of adult and pediatric emergencies. However, HealthPark is about to break ground on a new on-campus children’s hospital with its own dedicated emergency department. There will be substantially expanded capacity both within the new dedicated pediatric emergency department, and in the existing emergency department, where vacated space used for pediatric patients will be freed up for adults. Beyond the emergency departments themselves, there will be substantial additional acute care bed capacity, with space built to accommodate 160 dedicated pediatric beds in the new children’s hospital. The existing hospital will have the ability to add more than the 80 acute care beds proposed for the new hospital. This additional bed capacity could be in place within roughly the same timeframe projected for opening the proposed new hospital. To the extent additional capacity would improve emergency department performance, Cape Coral is completing an expansion project that increases its treatment bays from 24 to 42, and Lee Memorial is adding nine observation beds to its emergency department. No current expansion projects were identified for Gulf Coast, which just began operations in 2009, but LMHS has already invested in design and construction features to enable that facility to expand by an additional 252 beds. In Mr. Kistel’s words, Gulf Coast has a “tremendous platform for growth[.]” (Tr. 259). Mr. Gregg summarized AHCA’s perspective in considering the applicant’s arguments of geographic and emergency access enhancement, as follows: [I]n our view, this community is already well served by existing hospitals, either within the applicant’s system or from the competing Naples system, and we don’t think that the situation would be improved by adding another very small, extremely basic hospital. And to the extent that that would mislead people into thinking that it’s a full-service hospital that handles time-sensitive emergencies in the way that the larger hospitals do, that’s another concern. (Tr. 1425). * * * The fact that this hospital does not plan to offer those most time-sensitive services means that any – on the surface, as I said earlier, the possible improvement in emergency access offered by any new hospital is at least partially negated in this case because it has been proposed as such a basic hospital, when the more sophisticated services are located not far away. (Tr. 1431). Mr. Gregg’s opinion is reasonable and is credited. Economic Access The Estero/Bonita Springs community is a very affluent area, known for its golf courses and gated communities. As a result of the demographics of the proposed hospital’s projected service area, LMHS’s application offers to accept as a CON condition a commitment to provide 10 percent of the total annual patient days to a combination of Medicaid, charity, and self-pay patients. This commitment is less than the 2011-2012 experience for the primary service area, where patient days attributable to residents in these three payer classes was a combined 16.3 percent; and the commitment is less than the 2011- 2012 experience for the total proposed service area, where patient days in these three categories was a combined 14.4 percent. Nonetheless, LMHS’s experts reasonably explained that the commitment was established on the low side, taking into account the uncertainties of changes in the health care environment, to ensure that the commitment could be achieved. In contrast with the 10 percent commitment and the historic level of Medicaid/charity/self-pay patient days in the proposed service area, Lee Memorial historically has provided the highest combined level of Medicaid and charity patient days in district 8. According to LMHS’s financial expert, in 2012, Lee Memorial downtown and HealthPark, combined for reporting purposes under the same license, provided 31.5 percent of their patient days to Medicaid and charity patients--a percentage that would be even higher, it is safe to assume, if patient days in the “self- pay/other” payer category were added. At hearing, Mr. Gregg reasonably expressed concern with LMHS shifting its resources from the low-income downtown area where there is great need for economic access to a very affluent area where comparable levels of service to the medically needy would be impossible to achieve. Mr. Gregg acknowledged that AHCA has approved proposals in the past that help systems with safety-net hospitals achieve balance by moving some of the safety net’s resources to an affluent area. As previously noted, that sort of rationale was at play in the LMHS project to establish HealthPark, and again in the acquisitions of Cape Coral and Gulf Coast. However, LMHS now has three of its four hospitals thriving in relatively affluent areas. To move more LMHS resources from the downtown safety-net hospital to another affluent area would not be a move towards system balance, but rather, system imbalance, and would be contrary to the economic access CON review criteria in statute and rule. Missing Needs Assessment Factor: Medical Treatment Trends The consistent testimony of all witnesses with expertise to address this subject was that the trend in medical treatment continues to be in the direction of outpatient care in lieu of inpatient hospital care. The expected result will be that inpatient hospital usage will narrow to the most highly specialized services provided to patients with more serious conditions requiring more complex, specialized treatments. Mr. Gregg described this trend as follows: “[O]nly those services that are very expensive, operated by very extensive personnel” will be offered to inpatients in the future. (Tr. 1412). A basic acute care hospital without planned specialty or tertiary services is inconsistent with the type of hospital dictated by this medical treatment trend. Mr. Gregg reasonably opined that “the ability of a hospital system to sprinkle about small little satellite facilities is drawing to a close.” (Tr. 1413). Small hospitals will no longer be able to add specialized and tertiary services, because these will be concentrated in fewer hospitals. LMHS’s move to clinical specialization at its hospitals bears this out. Another trend expected to impact services within the timeframe at issue is the development of telemedicine as an alternative to inpatient hospital care. For patients who cannot be treated in an outpatient setting and released, an option will be for patients to recover at home in their own beds, with close monitoring options such as visual monitoring by video linking the patient with medical professionals, and use of devices to constantly measure and report vital signs monitored by a practitioner at a remote location. Telemedicine offers advantages over inpatient hospitalization with regard to infection control and patient comfort, as well as overall health care cost control by reducing the need for capital-intensive traditional bricks-and- mortar hospitals. A medical treatment trend being actively pursued by both LMHS and NCH is for better, more efficient management of inpatient care so as to reduce the average length of patient stays. A ten-year master planning process recently undertaken by LMHS included a goal to further reduce average lengths of stay by 0.65 days by 2021, and thereby reduce the number of hospital beds needed system-wide by 128 beds. LMHS did not address the subject of medical treatment trends as part of its needs assessment. The persuasive evidence demonstrated that medical treatment trends do not support the need for the proposed new facility; consideration of these trends weighs against approval. Competition; Market Conditions The proposed new hospital will not foster competition; it will diminish competition by expanding LMHS’s market dominance of acute care services in Lee County. AHCA voiced its reasonable concerns about Lee Memorial’s “unprecedented” market dominance of acute care services in a county as large as Lee, which recently ranked as the eighth most populous county in Florida. LMHS already provides a majority of hospital care being obtained by residents of the primary service area. LMHS will increase its market share if the proposed new hospital is approved. This increase will come both directly, via basic medical-surgical services provided to patients at the new hospital, and indirectly, via LMHS’s plan for the proposed new hospital to serve as a feeder system to direct patients to other LMHS hospitals for more specialized care.14/ The evidence did not establish that LMHS historically has used its market power as leverage to demand higher charges from private insurers. However, as LMHS’s financial expert acknowledged, the health care environment is undergoing changes, making the past less predictive of the future. The changing environment was cited as the reason for LMHS’s low commitment to Medicaid and charity care for the proposed project. There is evidence of LMHS’s market power in its high operating margin, more than six percent higher than NCH’s operating margin between 2009 and 2012. LMHS’s financial expert’s opinion that total margin should be considered instead of operating margin when looking at market power was not persuasive. Of concern is the market power in the field of hospital operations, making operating margin the appropriate measure. Overall, Mr. Gregg reasonably explained the lack of competitive benefit from the proposed project: I think that this proposal does less for competition than virtually any acute care hospital proposal that we’ve seen. As I said, it led the Agency to somewhat scratch [its] head in disbelief. There is no other situation like it. . . . This is the most basic of satellites. This hospital will be referring patients to the rest of the Lee Memorial system in diverse abundance because they are not going to be able to offer specialized services. And economies of scale are not going to allow it in the future. People will not be able to duplicate the expensive services that hospitals offer. So we do not see this as enhancing competition in any way at all. (Tr. 1416-1417). The proposed hospital’s inclusion of outpatient services, community education, and chronic care management presents an awkward dimension of direct competition with adjacent BCHC, the joint venture between LMHS and NCH. BCHC has been a money-losing proposition in a direct sense, but both systems remain committed to the venture, in part because of the indirect benefit they now share in the form of referrals of patients to both systems’ hospitals. Duplication of BCHC’s services, which are already struggling financially, would not appear to be beneficial competition. While this is not a significant factor, to the extent LMHS makes a point of the non-hospital outpatient services that will be available at the proposed new hospital, it must be noted that that dimension of the project does nothing to enhance beneficial competition. Adverse Impact NCH would suffer a substantial adverse financial impact caused by the establishment of the proposed hospital, if approved. A large part of the adverse financial impact would be attributable to lost patient volume at North Naples, an established hospital which is not well-utilized now, without a new hospital targeting residents of North Naples’ home zip code. The expected adverse financial impact of the proposed new hospital was reasonably estimated to be $6.4 million annually. Just as LMHS cited concerns about the unpredictability of the health care environment as a reason to lower its Medicaid/charity commitment for the proposed project, NCH has concerns with whether the substantial adverse impact from the proposed hospital will do serious harm to NCH’s viability, when added to the uncertain impacts of the Affordable Care Act, sequestration, Medicaid reimbursement, and other changes. LMHS counters with the view that if the proposed hospital is approved, in time population growth will offset the proposed hospital’s adverse impact. While consideration of medical treatment trends may dictate that an increasing amount of future population growth will be treated in settings other than a traditional hospital, Mr. Gregg opined that over time, the area’s population growth will still tend to drive hospital usage up. However, future hospital usage will be by a narrower class of more complex patients. Considering all of the competing factors established in this record, the likely adverse impact that NCH would experience if the proposed hospital is established, though substantial enough to support the standing of Petitioner North Naples, is not viewed as extreme enough to pose a threat to NCH’s viability. Institution/System-Specific Interests LMHS’s proposed condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial downtown is not a factor weighing in favor of approval of its proposed hospital. At hearing, LMHS defended the proposed CON condition as a helpful way to allow LMHS to address facility challenges at Lee Memorial. The evidence showed that to some extent, this issue is overstated in that, by all accounts, Lee Memorial provides excellent, award-winning care that meets all credentialing requirements for full accreditation. The evidence also suggested that to some extent, there are serious system issues facing LMHS that will need to be confronted at some point to answer the unanswered question posed by Mr. Gregg: What will become of Lee Memorial? Recognizing this, LMHS began a ten-year master planning process in 2011, to take a look at LMHS’s four hospitals in the context of the needs of Lee County over a ten-year horizon, and determine how LMHS could meet those needs. A team of outside and in-house experts were involved in the ten-year master planning process. LMHS’s strategic planning team looked at projected volumes and population information for all of Lee County over the next ten years and determined the number of beds needed to address projected needs. Recommendations were then developed regarding how LMHS would meet the needs identified for Lee County through 2021 by rearranging, adding, and subtracting beds among the four existing hospital campuses. A cornerstone of the master plan assessment by numerous outside experts and LMHS experts was that Lee Memorial’s existing physical plant was approaching the end of its useful life. Options considered were: replace the hospital building on the existing campus; downsize the hospital and relocate some of the beds and services to Gulf Coast; and the favored option, discontinue operations of Lee Memorial as an acute care hospital, removing all acute care beds and reestablishing those beds and services primarily at the Gulf Coast campus, with some beds possibly placed at Cape Coral. All of these options addressed the projected needs for Lee County through 2021 within the existing expansion capabilities of Gulf Coast and Cape Coral, and the expansion capabilities that HealthPark will have with the addition of its new on-campus children’s hospital. Somewhat confusingly, the CON application referred several times to LMHS’s “ten-year master plan for our long-term facility needs, which considers the changing geographic population trends of our region, the need for additional capacity during the seasonal months, and facility challenges at Lee Memorial[.]” (LMHS Exh. 3, pp. 12, 57). The implication given by these references was that the new hospital project was being proposed in furtherance of the ten-year master plan, as the product of careful, studied consideration in a long-range planning process to address the future needs of Lee County. To the contrary, although the referenced ten-year master plan process was, indeed, a long- range deliberative planning process to assess and plan for the future needs of Lee County, the ten-year master plan did not contemplate the proposed new hospital as a way to meet the needs in Lee County identified through 2021.15/ The ten-year master planning process was halted because of concerns about the options identified for Lee Memorial. Further investigation was to be undertaken for Lee Memorial and what services needed to be maintained there. No evidence was presented to suggest that this investigation had taken place as of the final hearing. The proposed CON condition to transfer 80 beds from Lee Memorial does nothing to address the big picture issues that LMHS faces regarding the Lee Memorial campus. According to different LMHS witnesses, either some or nearly all of those licensed beds are not operational or available to be put in service, so the license is meaningless and delicensing them would accomplish nothing. To the extent any of those beds are operational, delicensing them might cause Lee Memorial to suddenly have throughput problems and drop below the EMS offload time goal, when it has been one of the system’s best performers. The proposed piecemeal dismantling of Lee Memorial, without a plan to address the bigger picture, reasonably causes AHCA great concern. As Mr. Gregg explained, “[I]t raises a fundamental concern for us, in that the area around Lee Memorial, the area of downtown Fort Myers is the lower income area of Lee County. The area around the proposed facility, Estero, Bonita, is one of the upper income areas of Lee County.” (Tr. 1410). The plan to shift resources away from downtown caused Mr. Gregg to pose the unanswered question: “[W]hat is to become of Lee Memorial?” Id. Recognizing the physical plant challenges faced there, nonetheless AHCA was left to ask, “[W]hat about that population and how does [the proposed new hospital] relate? How does this proposed facility fit into the multihospital system that might exist in the future?” (Tr. 1410-1411). These are not only reasonable, unanswered questions, they are the same questions left hanging when LMHS interrupted the ten-year master planning process to react to HMA’s LOI with the CON application at issue here. Balanced Review of Pertinent Criteria In AHCA’s initial review, when it came time to weigh and balance the pertinent criteria, “It was difficult for us to come up with the positive about this proposal.” (Tr. 1432). In this case, AHCA’s initial review assessment was borne out by the evidence at hearing. The undersigned must agree with AHCA that the balance of factors weighs heavily, if not entirely, against approval of the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a Final Order denying CON application no. 10185. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Parties FRTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation (Charter) which proposes to construct and operate a freestanding, 60 bed, 24- hour-a-day, Intensive Residential Treatment Program for children between the ages of 6 and 18 in Palm Beach County within HRS District IX, pursuant to Rule 10-28.152(8), F.A.C. and Chapter 395, F.S. Although FRTC represents it will construct its proposed facility with or without CON licensure, which it is entitled to do, given the peculiarities of this type of health care entity, it is clear that a prime motivator in FRTC's CON application is that with CON licensure, FRTC potentially will have greater access to insurance reimbursement because it may then call itself a "hospital." FRTC will seek JCAH accreditation. HRS is the state agency with the authority and responsibility to consider CON applications, pursuant to Chapter 10-5.011, F.A.C. and Sections 381.701-381.715, F.S. (1987). HRS preliminarily approved FRTC's application, and supported it through formal hearing and post-hearing proposals. RTCPB is an existing 40 bed residential treatment center for adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18, located in Palm Beach County, on the campus of Lake Hospital of the Palm Beaches. It provides services similar or identical to those services proposed to be offered by FRTC. It is JCAH accredited through an extension of Lake Hospital's accreditation and is close to JCAH accreditation in its own right. RTCPB is a subsidiary of Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc. (PIA) . PIA operates two residential treatment centers in Florida. RTCPB is not CON licensed as an IRTP, under Chapters 381 and 395, F.S., but is licensed as a child care facility under Chapter 395, F.S., as a provider of services to HRS under Chapters 10M-9 and 10E-10, F.A.C. RTCPB accepts substance abusers in residency. RTCPB has also applied for CON licensure as an IRTP in a batching cycle subsequent to the present one. That application has been preliminarily denied by HRS and RTCPB is awaiting a Section 120.57(1), F.S., formal administrative hearing thereon. RTCPB now estimates its current patients' average length of stay (ALOS) as 106 days but projects a 315 day (10 1/2 months) ALOS in its subsequent CON application. RTCPB is charging $185 per day or HRS patients and $255 with $23-26 ancillaries [sic] per day for private pay patients. Like FRTC, it uses a "levels" system of behavior modification and patient control. Humana is a 250 bed JCAH accredited hospital located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Of Humana's 250 beds, 162 are traditional acute care beds and 88 are psychiatric beds. The 88 psychiatric beds are administratively divided into different units, one of which is a 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit; this unit opened January 20, 1987, and has an average length of stay of nine months. Humana's existing CONs are for short-term adult psychiatric beds and do not authorize an adolescent unit with an average length of stay of over 30 days. Ninety days is the demarcation, by rule, between short- and long-term psychiatric beds. Humana recently applied for a CON for more psychiatric beds and also applied for an IRTP CON in a subsequent batch to the present one. Humana's present 27 bed adolescent psychiatric unit provides grossly similar services to those proposed to be offered by FRTC, but its emphasis is more medical-psychiatric than emotional-behavioral. Like FRTC, Humana does not accept in residency adolescents with a primary diagnosis of substance abuse. Like FRTC and RTCPB, Humana uses a "levels" system. Eighty percent of Humana's patient mix are commercial pay, and the unit is running at a 15 to 20 percent profit margin. Humana usually charges $325 per day on their adolescent unit plus ancillaries [sic] amounting to 10 percent of the patient's bill, but HRS contract patients pay only $225 per day. Humana has lost a number of adolescent unit referrals to RTCPB since RTCPB opened June 1, 1987, but the unit continues to be almost fully occupied. Humana's main referral asset, as well as the source of the confusion of referring entities, appears to be the reputation of its director, Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly previously directed a program at Lake Hospital which was identical to the program that he now directs at Humana. Lake Hospital currently has RTCPB operating under its auspices, but not Dr. Kelly. Nature of the FRTC Program FRTC's proposed program is designed to serve those persons in the designated age group who have psychiatric diagnoses of a severity requiring a long-term approach in a multidisciplinary structured living setting to facilitate recovery. It will not, however, treat adolescents with an active diagnosis of chemical dependency or substance abuse. It also only commits to 1.5 percent indigent care. The proposed FRTC program differs from an acute care setting in significant quantitative and qualitative ways, the most visible of which is that acute care psychiatric settings (either long- or short-term) are geared toward dealing with patients actively dangerous to property, themselves, or others, but patients whom it is reasonably assumed will respond primarily to physiologically-oriented physicians and registered nurses administering daily medication, treatment, and monitoring, as opposed to a long-term living arrangement emphasizing behaviorally-oriented group interaction as an alternative to parental care at home. FRTC will, however, accept patients with psychiatric diagnoses of effective disorders, depression, schizophrenia and impulse disorders and those who may be potentially harmful to themselves, others, or property for whom no other less intensive or less restrictive form of treatment would be predictably helpful. FRTC would fall on the continuum of care below an acute psychiatric facility such as Humana. Assessment of such a target group on a patient by patient basis is obviously subject to a wide variation of interpretation by qualified health care professionals, but FRTC anticipates both verifying referral diagnoses and assuring quality of care by insuring that each new patient is seen by a psychiatrist within 24 hours of admission, and by having each case reviewed by an independent utilization review committee. FRTC also plans to complete appropriate patient assessments and develop and update individual, integrated treatment programs. FRTC will provide, where appropriate, for continuity of care from previous acute care institutions through the FRTC program and out into more normal individual or family living arrangements. Parents will have to consent to their child's placement at FRTC. FRTC's program proposes an average length of stay of 365 days (one year) with a range of six months to two years. Based upon all the credible record evidence as a whole, including, but not limited to, the protestants' respective ALOS, this is a reasonable forecast despite contrary evidence as to Charter's experience at its "template" Virginia institution, Charter Colonial. FRTC's program components will include individual therapy, recreational therapy, occupational therapy, and general education. The general education component in FRTC's proposed program is more general and more open than that offered in acute care settings, such as Humana. FRTC's overall program will utilize a "levels" system of behavioral management based upon patients earning privileges, which levels system has a good patient rehabilitation and functional administrative track record in many different kinds of psychiatric health care facilities, including Humana and RTCPB. FRTC intends that each patient's program will be individualized according to age and program component directed to his/her diagnosis and each patient will receive individual, resident group, and family therapies. As to assessment, types of therapy, continuity of care, and general education provisions, FRTC's proposal is grossly consistent with that of its "template." To the extent there is evidence of inconsistencies between the two programs in the record, the FRTC proposal represents either improvements over, or refinements of, its template program which have been developed as Charter/FRTC has learned more about what actually "works" for the IRTP form of health care, or it represents changes to accommodate Florida's perception of what less restrictive but still intensive residential treatment should be, or it anticipates local community needs. Quality of Care The applicant's parent corporation is an experienced provider of many types of accredited psychiatric facilities. The type of quality assurance program proposed and the staff mix provide reasonable quality care assurances. Design, Construction, and Personnel Refinements to FRTC's original schematic take into consideration the influence that physical structure has on an Intensive Residential Treatment Program. Those refinements include modification of a multipurpose room into a half-court gymnasium, addition of a classroom, addition of a mechanical room, modification of the nursing station to decrease the amount of space, and the deletion of one seclusion room and addition of a four to six bed assessment unit. The modifications resulted in the addition of approximately 1,000 square feet to the original design. A minimum of four to six acres would be necessary to accommodate the modified design which totals approximately 32,000 square feet. Public areas, such as administration and support services, dining room, and housekeeping areas, are to the front; private areas, such as the nursing units, are to the back. The facility's middle area houses gym, classrooms, and occupational therapy areas. The location encourages residential community involvement. Each of three, 20-bed units is made up of a group of two consultation rooms, a galley, a laundry, a day room and core living space located directly across from the nursing station for maximum observation and efficiency. Each unit comprises a separate wing. Six handicapped accessible patient beds are contemplated; the building will be handicapped-accessible. The staffing projections have increased and the pattern has been minimally altered in the updates. The updated pro forma also modified the initial financial projections so as to increase salary expense and employee benefits based on this change in staffing. An increase in the total project cost impacted on depreciation, and interest expense changed with time. All these changes are reasonable and insubstantial. FRTC's design is adequate for providing a suitable environment for intensive residential treatment for children and adolescents even though it is not identical to Charter's "template" for residential treatment and even though Charter's extensive experience with acute care facilities has focused these changes in its residential treatment concepts. The parties stipulated to the adequacy of FRTC's proposed equipment list and costs. Total construction cost was demonstrated to be reasonably estimated at $2,078,000. The square footage costs of $64.86 per square foot represet an increase from the square footage costs contained in the original CON application. The original budget was updated based upon a three percent inflation factor and the addition of the approximately 1,000 square feet. The additional space is not a significant construction change. The total project costs of $4,728,000 are reasonable. The testimony of HRS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, John Griffin, who testified by deposition, (RTCPB's Exhibit 8, pp. 21-22) revealed no firm policy on what the agency, within its expertise, views as substantial and impermissible amendments to a CON application; HRS did not move at hearing to remand for further review; and the undersigned concludes that the changes in facility design, costs, and staffing do not represent significant changes which would be excludable as evidence and that they do represent permissible minor modifications and refinements of the original FRTC application. Site Availability No party contended that FRTC's application was a "site specific" application, that a residential treatment program is otherwise required to be "site specific," or that an IRTP CON is governed by a "site specific" rule or by "site specific" statutory criteria. Therefore, it was only necessary for FRTC in this noncomparative proceeding to establish that several suitable sites were available within the required geographic parameters at the financial amount allotted in FRTC's projections. FRTC did establish financially and geographically available and suitable sites through the testimony of Robert H. Ellzey, a qualified expert in commercial real estate values. The Non-Rule Need Policy There are no hospital licensed Intensive Residential Treatment Programs in Palm Beach County or in District IX. IRTPs are in a separate licensure category by law from psychiatric beds, acute care beds, and rehabilitation beds. There is a separate need methodology for long-term psychiatric beds and there are no CON licensed long-term psychiatric programs for children and adolescents in District IX, unless one considers Humana which is treating adolescents well beyond 30 or 90 days residency. HRS has no promulgated rule predicting need for IRTPs seeking specialty hospital licensure under Chapter 395, F.S. Subsequent to advice of its counsel that a CON must be obtained as a condition of IRTP licensure pursuant to Chapter 395, F.S., HRS elected to evaluate all IRTP CON applications in the context of the statutory criteria of Chapter 381, F.S., and in the context of HRS' non-rule policy establishing a rebuttable presumption of need for one "reasonably sized" IRTP in each HRS planning district. The May 5, 1988 Final Order in Florida Psychiatric Centers v. HRS, et al., DOAH Case No. 88- 0008R, held this non-rule policy invalid as a rule due to HRS' failure to promulgate it pursuant to Section 120.54, F.S., but that order also held the policy not to be invalid as contrary to Chapter 381, F.S. That Final Order intervened between the close of final hearing in the instant case and entry of the instant Recommended Order, however, it does not alter the need for the agency to explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case by case basis. HRS was unable to do so in the formal hearing in the instant case. Notwithstanding the oral testimony of Robert May and Elizabeth Dudek, and the deposition testimony of John Griffin, it appears that the non- rule policy is not based upon generally recognized health planning considerations, but solely on the agency's statutory interpretation of recent amendments to Chapter 395 and some vague perception, after internal agency discussions, that the policy is consistent with certain promulgated need rules and with certain other non-rule policies for other types of health care entities, which other non-rule policies were never fully enunciated or proved up in this formal hearing. The HRS non-rule policy was also not affirmatively demonstrated to be rational because it does not take into account the reasonableness of a proposed facility's average length of stay, referral sources, geographic access, or other factors common to duly promulgated CON rules. Numerical Need and Conformity to Applicable Health Plans FRTC sought to support HRS' non-rule policy on numerical need for, and definition of, a "reasonably sized" IRTP through the testimony of Dr. Ronald Luke, who was qualified as an expert in health planning, development of need methodologies, health economies, survey research, and development of mental health programs. In the absence of a finding of a rational non-rule policy on numerical need, Dr. Luke's evidence forms the cornerstone of FRTC's demonstration of numerical need. Through the report and testimony of Dr. Luke, and despite contrary expert health planning testimony, FRTC established the numerical need for, and reasonableness of, its 60 licensed IRTP beds in District IX with projected 60 percent occupancy in the first year and 50 percent in the second year of operation using two bed need methodologies. Dr. Luke ultimately relied on a utilization methodology based upon 1991 population projections. Dr. Luke used a census rate per 100,000 population of 21.58. This is appropriately and reasonably derived from national data for residential treatment patients aged 0-17, regardless of the fact that the types of residential treatment considered by the NIMH data base employed by Dr. Luke greatly vary in concept and despite HRS having not yet clearly defined the nature of the programs and services it expects to be offered by a Florida specialty hospital licensed IRTP. Therefrom, Dr. Luke derived an average daily census of 52 in 1991. That figure yields a bed sizing of between 58 and 61 beds, depending on whether an 85 percent or 90 percent occupancy factor is plugged in. Either 58 or 61 beds is within the range of ratios calculated by Dr. Luke's other methodology for currently licensed Florida IRTPs in other districts. Assuming a target occupancy rate of 85 percent and an ALOS of one year, Dr. Luke considered the gross District IX IRTP bed need to be 60. In the absence of any like program to assess occupancy for and in the presence of similar programs such as Humana operating at nearly full occupancy now and RTCPB forecasting its occupancy at 88 percent in 1990 if it were IRTP-licensed, it is found that 60 beds are justified. Since there are no IRTP beds licensed as specialty hospitals in the current district bed inventory, no adjustment of this figure must be made to account for existing licensed IRTP beds. Simply stated, this is a CON application for an IRTP, nothing more and nothing less, and the subtrahend to be subtracted from gross district bed need is zero when there is a zero specialty hospital licensed IRTP bed inventory. Luke's calculated gross need of 60 bed is also his net need and is accepted. Fifty beds is generally the minimum size HRS will approve to be feasible for any free standing facility to be eonomically efficient and to be able to benefit from economies of scale. This 50 bed concept is within the wide range of bed ratios that HRS implicitly has found reasonable in, previously- licensed IRTP CON approvals. Conformity With Applicable Health Plans Section 38l.705(1)(a), F.S., requires HRS to consider CON applications against criteria contained in the applicable State and District Health Plans. In this regard, neither the applicable State Health Plan nor the applicable District IX Local Health Plan make any reference to a need for intensive residential treatment facilities. The District IX Health Plan addresses the need for psychiatric and substance abuse services to be available to all individuals in District IX. FRTC's project addresses this goal only in part. The District Health Plan states that priority should be given to CON applicants who make a commitment to providing indigent care. FRTC proposes only 1.5 percent indigent care which works out to only 1/2 of the ALOS of one patient at the proposed facility and is hardly optimum, but in a noncomparative hearing, it stands alone as advancing the given accessibility goal within the plan. Objective 1.3 of the State Health Plan provides: Through 1987, additional long-term inpatient psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy for all existing and approved long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the HRS District is at least 80 percent. FRTC's project is neutral as to this goal. The District Plan also contains a goal for a complete range of health care services for the population of the district. FRTC advances this goal. The State Health Plan further provides: Goal 10: DEVELOP A COMPLETE RANGE OF ESSENTIAL PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IN EACH HRS DISTRICT OBJECTIVE 10.1: Develop a range of essential mental health services in each HRS district by 1989. OBJECTIVE 10.3: Develop a network of residential treatment settings for Florida's severely emotionally disturbed children by 1990. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.03A: Develop residential placements within Florida for all SED children currently receiving ing treatment in out-of-state facilities by 1990. The FRTC project advances these goals in part. To the extent SED patients placed outside the state for residential treatment services are HRS patients whom FRTC as yet has not contracted to treat, the FRTC project does not advance this goal. However, increased insurance reimbursement will advance accessibility for those SED children and adolescents in need of this type of care whose families have insurance coverage. The State Plan also emphasizes a goal for a continuum of care. The FRTC plan advances this goal. Financial Feasibility William S. Love, Senior Director of Hospital Operations for Charter, was accepted as an expert in health care finance. Mr. Love prepared the pro forma financial statement contained in the original CON application and the update of the pro forma in response to HRS' completeness questions. Mr. Love also had input into the updated financial information which increased salary and benefit expense. (See FOF No. 11). The revised pro forma utilized an assumption of gross patient revenues of $300 per day and a 365 day ALOS, both of which are reasonable and both of which support the rest of FRTC's assumptions (See FOF No. 9). Routine revenues are based on the types of routine services patients normally receive on a daily basis. Ancillary revenues are support revenues such as pharmacy charges, X-rays, lab charges, and other charges not generally utilized on a routine basis. The only charges to patients at the proposed FRTC facility are the routine and ancillary charges. The assumptions with regard to contractual adjustments are that there will be no Medicare utilization since the facility is projected for children and adolescents and no Medicaid since freestanding facilities in Florida are not eligible for Medicaid. Two percent of gross patient revenues are estimated to be contractual adjustments which relate to HMOs and PPOs. FRTC addresses indigent care by 1.5 percent of gross revenues which will be dedicated to Charter Care which is free care. The assumptions with regard to bad debt are that 8 percent of gross revenue will be the allowance for bad debt. An assumption of 20 percent of salaries was used for employee benefits which include the FICA tax, health insurance, dental insurance, retirement plans, and other benefits. Supplies and expenses were calculated as a function of patient day with a $90 per day estimate. Included in supplies and expenses are supplies utilized in the delivery of health care services as well as medical professional fees such as the half-time medical director and purchased services such as laundry, linen, speech and hearing services, utilities, telephone, malpractice insurance, repairs and maintenance. The depreciation assumptions are that the building would be depreciated over 40 years, fixed equipment over 20 years and major movable equipment over 10 years. Pre-opening expenses for the first 45 days of operation have been capitalized over 60 months with low amortization costs over 15 years. There is no income tax assumed in the first year but the assumption in subsequent years is that the tax rate will be 38 percent. The failure to assume a hospital tax is inconsequential. The assumptions for the second fiscal year are basically the same. Although staffing remained the same, the FTEs per occupied bed increased, and a 7 percent inflation factor was added. The project will be financially feasible even though the facility is pessimistically projecting a loss of $102,000 for the first year because a facility can suffer a loss in its first year of operation and remain financially feasible. The facility projects a $286,000 profit in its second year of operation. With regard to utilization by class of pay, FRTC has assumed that the insurance category represents 65.5 percent of total revenues projected and includes such things as commercial insurance, Blue Cross and any third party carrier other than Medicare and Medicaid. Assumptions with regard to the private pay are that 25 percent of the total revenues will be generated by private pay patients and would include the self pay portions of an insurance payor's bill, such as deductible and co-insurance. Bad debt was assumed to be 8 percent, and Charter Care or free care, 1.5 percent. FRTC's projected utilization by class of pay is reasonable and is supported by the protestants' current experience with commercial insurance utilization and reimbursement and the predicted recoveries if RTCPB were IRTP-licensed. In the second year of operation, the assumptions with regard to utilization by class of pay demonstrated an increase in the insurance category from 65.5 to 66.5 percent with everything else remaining the same except for a decrease in bad debt to 7 percent. The assumption with regard to a decrease in bad debt is based upon the establishment of referral patterns from acute psychiatric facilities, outpatient programs, mental health therapists, and miscellaneous programs. The assumption is that 65 percent of the patients would be covered by insurance, not that 65 percent of each bill would be paid by insurance. Charter's experience has been that a good portion of the deductible and co-insurance payments are collectible. FRTC did not assume payment from any governmental contracts or HRS reimbursement. FRTC's projected self pay percentages assumption reasonably contemplates the percentage of households in the district which can afford its projections for self pay. For purposes of evaluating the financial feasibility of this proposal, a management fee was not included because in looking at the financial feasibility of a facility the expenses of a corporate home office are incurred whether or not the facility is built. It was not appropriate to allocate a management fee to the hospital because it showed a loss in its first year of operation and a profit in its second. When the facility becomes profitable, FRTC anticipates passing the profit through to the corporation to help reduce the corporate overhead. If a management fee had been allocated to this facility, allocations would have had to have been made to the other Charter facilities to show where their management expense had decreased and their profitability increased. It would have been inappropriate to take these fixed expenses and allocate a portion of them to the proposed FRTC facility. In addition to the fact that the failure to include a management fee in the pro forma should not affect the feasibility of the project, Charter has good cause not to apply a $44 per patient day management fee in its IRTP. FRTC's categories of payor class are generally reasonable based in part on the results of a survey performed in Florida. FRTC's assumptions and calculations are reasonable, based upon the testimony of William S. Love and Dr. Ronald Luke, notwithstanding the testimony of Dan Sullivan, Donald Wilson, and Christopher Knepper, also qualified as experts. Specifically, it is found that Dr. Luke's assessment that the designation of a facility as a licensed specialty hospital has a beneficial effect on its ability to obtain insurance reimbursement for services, that reimbursement impacts to increase ALOS, and that the breakdown of sources of payment that FRTC has used is reasonable, is a credible assessment, supported elsewhere in the record. It is also found that Mr. Knepper's assessment for bad debt is inadequately supported and inconsistent with other evidence, and therefore not credible. Mr. Sullivan's testimony is not persuasive. Staffing and Recruitment Dr. Brett, a Charter regional director for hospital operations, was accepted as an expert in staffing psychiatric facilities including residential treatment centers. His distinctions between the acute care and residential types of facilities are corroborated and explained by other witnesses and evidence. Mr. Joyner was accepted as Charter's expert recruiter. Although the depth of Mr. Joyner's hands-on involvement in active recruitment is not extensive, the Charter network of manpower referrals and "head hunting" will obviously support this project. Upon the combined testimony of Dr. Brett, Mr. Joyner, and Paul Bodner, Charter's senior director of physician relations, there is sufficient evidence that FRTC can recruit a suitable staffing pattern to ensure quality of care (see FOF Nos. 9 and 10) in its proposed program, even if it has to hire from out of state and pay somewhat higher salaries due to some qualified manpower shortages in certain categories in Palm Beach County. In making this finding, the undersigned has considered the testimony of Donald Wilson concerning certain institution-specific recruiting problems of his principal, RTCPB, and the "step down" status of residential treatment as testified by Mary Certo, of Humana. Impact on Costs and Competition The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to attract patients with insurance coverage who would otherwise go to existing facilities for care, however, in light of the relatively consistent occupancy rates at Humana and RTCPB despite both their geographical proximity and the unique confusion of referrals arising over the relocation of Dr. Kelly, this impact is not altogether clear. Dr. Kelly's reputation will not be impacted by granting of a CON to FRTC. It is also not possible upon the basis of the record created in this hearing to factor out reimbursement differences inherent in Humana's current CON classification and RTCPB's circumstance as an unlicensed intensive residential treatment center. In any case, the negative impact upon Humana must be measured against the health planning goals expressed by several witnesses that it is desirable to substitute more suitable, less restrictive facilities for institutionalization of the severely emotionally disturbed child and adolescent whenever possible and that it is also desirable to encourage residential treatment upon a continuum of care basis after acute psychiatric care. The FRTC project will obviously increase the accessibility to this type of treatment for young people who have the appropriate insurance coverage. These goals are in conformity with the applicable health plans. The FRTC project can reasonably be expected to initially increase some costs of health services throughout the district because it will inflate some salary costs due to competition, but the negative impact will probably be short term.
Recommendation Upon a balanced consideration of all relevant criteria it is RECOMMENDED that HRS enter a Final Order approving FRTC's CON application for an IRTP, as updated, for licensure as a specialty hospital. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-2037 & 87-2050 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., with regard to the parties' respective Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF) of FRTC: Covered in "issue" and FOF 1. Covered in FOF 1 and 2. 3-7. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 8. Accepted in FOF 12. 9-12. Except as subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative, accepted in FOF 7-9. 13. Accepted in FOF 10. 14-17. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 7-11, 30. Although portions of the underlying data referred to in proposal 16 and by Mr. Joyner in his testimony was excluded from evidence, he was qualified as a recruitment expert and for the reasons set forth in FOF 30, his opinion is accepted. 18-19. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 23. Accepted in FOF 24. Accepted in FOF 25 and 29. Accepted in FOF 26 and 29. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, covered in FOF 27. Except as mere argument or statement of position, accepted in FOF 26-27, and 29. 27-29. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 26-29. 30-31. Accepted in FOF 28. 32-40. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found; in part rejected as mere argument or recital of testimony, not distinguishing opinion from fact. To the degree adopted or accepted upon the record as a whole, see FOF 9, 11, 21, 26-29. 41-44. Accepted in part and rejected in part as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 29-32. 45-47. Rejected, as recital or summation of testimony and as part of preliminary agency review not relevant to this de novo proceeding. 48. Covered in FOF 7, 18-20, 22, and 26. 49-52. dejected as set out in "organic law and legislative background," "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15. See also COL. 53. Accepted in FOF 16. 54-58. Rejected in part and accepted in part as set out in FOF 14-15. Rejected where not supported in full by the record as a whole, where subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found and where mere recital of testimony. 59. Accepted in principle and modified to conform to the record in FOF 18-20, 31. 60-61. Accepted in part and rejected in part as stated in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and in FOF 14-16 and the COL. Accepted in FOF 15 and COL. Accepted in FOF 18-20, 31. 64-68. Rejected as unnecessary to the facts as found in FOF 1, 7, 13-15 and 29, also in part as not supported by the record as a whole, and as primarily legal argument and recitation of testimony. Accepted in FOF 3-4 and 30. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 3-4, 7, 26, and 29. 71-74. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9 and 30-32. HRS' Proposed Findings of Fact (PFOF): 1-3. Accepted in "organic law and legislative background." 4. (Two paragraphs) Accepted FOF 3-4. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. Accepted, FOF 29-32. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted, FOF 1. 10-18 & 20. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5, 6, 15, 26, 31. 19. Rejected as irrelevant. 21-28. Accepted in part as modified to conform to the record as a whole in FOF 6-9, 30-31. The irrelevant, unnecessary or subordinate material has also been rejected. 29-31. Accepted in FOF 4, 9, 21, 26, 29-31. 32-35. Accepted in FOF 7-9. 36-41. Accepted in FOF 7-9 as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application, in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 42-45. Accepted as modified to conform to the record as a whole, to eliminate subordinate and irrelevant matters and to comport with the rulings on the insubstantiality of updates to the CON application in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 9-11, 21, 23, 30 and 32. Accepted in FOF 22, 26, 29. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 22, 26. 49-52. Accepted in FOF 3, 4, 21-29. Assuming, based on the transcript reference, that this proposal refers to FRTC's pro forma, this proposal is accepted but unnecessary for the reasons set forth in rulings on HRS' PFOF 36-45. See FOF 11 and 21-29. Accepted in FOF 13-15. 55-58. Rejected as unnecessary. 59. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 13-15. 60-62. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-14, as mere recital of testimony and statements of position. 63. Accepted in FOF 29. 64-65. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Accepted in FOF 7-9. Accepted that HRS made this assumption but it fails to explicate the non-rule policy. See FOF 13-14. Accepted in FOF 16. Rejected as a statement of position or COL. Peripherally, see COL. Accepted in FOF 13-14 but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. Rejected in FOF 13-14. 72-74. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 75-76. Accepted in FOF 17-20. This is a subordinate definition and not a FOF. See FOF 30-31 and COL. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 17-20, 31. Accepted in FOF 10. Accepted in FOF 13-15. Accepted as stated in the "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 13-15 and in the COL. 82-85. Covered in FOF 3-6, 13-15. 86. Rejected as preliminary agency action, irrelevant to this de novo proceeding. 87-88. Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary. 89. Accepted in FOF 29. 90-96. Accepted as modified to conform to the record evidence as a whole and FOF 15-16 and to reject subordinate and unnecessary material. Accepted without any connotations of the word "therefore" in FOF 4, 7-9, 21 and 29. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Accepted in "organic and legislative background" and FOF 13-15. Rejected as not established upon the record as a whole; unnecessary. Rejected as a statement of position only. Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of RTCPB and Humana 1-2 Accepted in FOF 1. 3-4. Accepted in FOF 2. 5-6. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 3-4. 7. Accepted in "issue" and FOF 5-6. 8-13. Accepted in part and rejected in part as set out under "procedural and evidentiary matters," FOF 3-6, 13-15, and the COL. 14-18. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 1, 7-9, 11, 21-29. 19-27. Rejected as irrelevant preliminary action to this de novo proceeding. 28-36. Rejected in part and accepted in part upon the compelling competent, substantial evidence in the record as a whole as set forth in FOF 13-14. Also as to 33 see FOF 15. 37-52. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 13-16 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence of record as a whole. Irrelevant, unnecessary and subordinate material has been rejected, as has mere argument of counsel. Accepted in FOF 17. Rejected in FOF 20, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 20, 31. Excepting the mere rhetoric, accepted in FOF 18, 31. Accepted as modified in FOF 7, 18-20, 26, 31. 58-59. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 17-20, 26, Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as recital of testimony and argument 62-63. Rejected as unnecessary. 64-67. Accepted in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The first sentence is rejected as cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 3-4, 6-9. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. Rejected in FOF 4, 21. Accepted in FOF 4 and 21, 29. Rejected as unnecessary Accepted in FOF 26. Rejected in FOF 15-20, 31. Rejected as unnecessary in a noncomparitive hearing. 75-87. Except as irrelevant, unnecessary, or subordinate, accepted in FOF 5-9, 30, 31. Rejected in part as unnecessary and in part as not comporting with the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 7-10 and 30. Accepted in FOF 1, 5-9. 90-92. Accepted in FOF 5-9. Rejected in FOF 5-6. Rejected as subordinate. 95-98. Accepted in FOF 5-9. 99-102. Rejected as unnecessary. 103. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, accepted in FOF 5-9. 104-118. Except as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found, these proposals are covered in FOF 5-9, 30-31. Except as Subordinate, covered in FOF 6 and 31. Accepted in part in FOF 5-9, 21-29, otherwise rejected as misleading. Except as subordinate, accepted in FOF 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted in FOF 21. Accepted in FOF 21-29. Rejected in part and accepted in part in FOF 21-29. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary in part and not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in 21-29. 127-128. These proposals primarily recite testimony by Mr. Grono, an administrator of a psychiatric hospital for very severely disturbed persons (Grant Center). This evidence by itself is not persuasive in light of Dr. Luke's study and other admissions of the parties referenced in FOF 21-29. Upon the greater weight of contrary evidence, it is rejected. 129. Rejected as subordinate except partly accepted in FOF 29. 130-133. Rejected upon the greater weight of the evidence in FOF 9, 11 and 21-29. 134, 139. Rejected as legal argument without citation. 135-138. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 140-144. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence and as partly mere legal argument. See FOF 9, 21-29. 145. The first sentence is rejected upon the reference to PFOF 140-144 for the same reasons given above and the remainder is rejected as subordinate. 146. Rejected in FOF 21-29. 147. Rejected as mere legal argument without citation. 148-149. Rejected in FOF 21-29, particularly 27 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. The mere legal argument is also rejected. 150-157. Rejected as set out in FOF 28 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. Uncited argument and statements of position have likewise bean rejected. 158, 160. Rejected as mere argument without citation. 159. Rejected as subordinate and not dispositive of any material issue at bar in FOF 23. 161. Rejected as mere argument. 162-167. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence in FOF 30-32. Also 167 is rejected as mere argument without citation. 168. Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 30-32. 169. Accepted but subordinate. 170. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative to the facts as found in FOF 31. 171-180. Covered in FOF 30-32. 181-185. Rejected as contrary to the evidence in part and in part unnecessary and cumulative to the ruling in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 7, 10-11, 21, 23, 30-32. 186-188. Rejected in FOF 7, 10 and 30 upon the greater weight of the credible evidence. 189. Rejected as unnecessary 190. Rejected in FOF 30. 191-392. Accepted but not dispositive of any material issue at bar. See FOF 30-32. 193. Rejected in FOF 30-32. 194-195. Except as subordinate or unnecessary, rejected in the several references to future establishment of referral networks. See FOF 21, 27. 196-197 & 199. Rejected as unnecessary 198. Rejected as irrelevant in part and immaterial in part upon the rulings in "procedural and evidentiary matters" and FOF 11. 200. Rejected as unnecessary 201-202. Accepted in FOF 7, 20, 26-27 and 31, but cumulative. 203. Covered in the COL. Rejected in FOF 21-22. 204. Rejected as mere argument without citation. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire AUSLEY, McMULLEN, McGEHEE, CAROTHERS & PROCTOR 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John T. Brennan, Jr., Esquire BONNER & O'CONNEL 900 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 James C. Hauser, Esquire Joy Heath Thomas, Esquire MESSER, VICKERS, CAPARELLO, FRENCH & MADSEN 215 South Monroe Street Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Fred W Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.
Findings Of Fact Long Term Care Hospitals Of the four classes of facilities licensed as hospitals by the Agency, "Class I or general hospitals," includes: General acute care hospitals with an average length of stay of 25 days or less for all beds; Long term care hospitals, which meet the provisions of subsection 59A-3.065(27), F.A.C.; and, Rural hospitals designated under Section 395, Part III, F.S. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.252(1)(a). This proceeding concerns CON applications for the second of Florida's Class I or general hospitals: LTCHs. A critically ill patient may be admitted and treated in a general acute care hospital, but, if the patient cannot be stabilized or discharged to a lower level of care on the continuum of care within a relatively short time, the patient may be discharged to an LTCH. An LTCH patient is almost always "critically catastrophically ill or ha[s] been." (Tr. 23). Typically, an LTCH patient is medically unstable, requires extensive nursing care with physician oversight, and often requires extensive technological support. The LTCH patient usually fits into one or more of four categories. One category is patients in need of pulmonary/respiratory services. Usually ventilator dependent, these types of LTCH patients have other needs as well that requires "complex comprehensive ventilator weaning in addition to meeting ... other needs." (Tr. 26). A second category is patients in need of wound care whose wound is life-threatening. Frequently compromised by inadequate nutrition, these types of LTCH patients are often diabetic. There are a number of typical factors that may account for the seriousness of the wound patient's condition. The job of the staff at the LTCH in such a case is to attend to the wound and all the other medical problems of the patient that have extended the time required for care of the wound. A third category is patients with some sort of neuro-trauma. These patients may have had a stroke and are often elderly; if younger, they may be victims of a car accident or some other serious trauma. They typically have multiple body systems that require medical treatment, broken bones and a closed head injury for example, that have made them "very sick and complex." (Tr. 27). The fourth category is referred to by the broad nomenclature of "medically complex" although it is a subset of the population of LTCH patients all of whom are medically complex. The condition of the patients in this fourth category involves two or more body systems. The patients usually present at the LTCH with "renal failure ... [and] with another medical condition ... that requires a ventilator ..." Id. In short, LTCHs provide extended medical and rehabilitative care to patients with multiple, chronic, and/or clinically complex acute medical conditions that usually require care for a relatively extended period of time. To meet the definition of an LTCH a facility must have an average length of inpatient stay ("ALOS") greater than 25 days for all hospital beds. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065(34). The staffs at general acute care hospitals and LTCHs have different orientations. With a staff oriented toward a patient population with a much shorter ALOS, the general acute care hospital setting may not be appropriate for a patient who qualifies for LTCH services. The staff at a general acute care hospital frequently judges success by a patient getting well in a relatively short time. It is often difficult for general acute care hospital staff to sustain the interest and effort necessary to serve the LTCH patient well precisely because of the staff's expectation that the patient will improve is not met in a timely fashion. As time goes by, that expectation continues to be frustrated, a discouragement to staff. The LTCH is unlike other specialized health care settings. The complex, medical, nursing, and therapeutic requirements necessary to serve the LTCH patient may be beyond the capability of the traditional comprehensive medical rehabilitation ("CMR") hospital, nursing home, skilled nursing facility ("SNF"), or, the skilled nursing unit ("SNU"). CMR units and hospitals are rarely, if ever, appropriate for the LTCH patient. Almost invariably, LTCH patients are not able to tolerate the minimum three (3) hours of therapy per day associated with CMR. The primary focus of LTCHs, moreover, is to provide continued acute medical treatment to the patient that may not yet be stable, with the ultimate goal of getting the patient on the road to recovery. In comparison, the CMR hospital treats medically stable patients consistent with its primary focus of restoring functional capabilities, a more advanced step in the continuum of care. Services provided in LTCHs are distinct from those provided in SNFs or SNUs. The latter are not oriented generally to patients who need daily physician visits or the intense nursing services or observations needed by an LTCH patient. Most nursing and clinical personnel in SNFs and SNUs are not experienced with the unique psychosocial needs of long-term acute care patients and their families. An LTCH is distinguished within the healthcare continuum by the high level of care the patient requires, the interdisciplinary treatment model it follows, and the duration of the patient's hospitalization. Within the continuum of care, LTCHs occupy a niche between traditional acute care hospitals that provide initial hospitalization care on a short-term basis and post-acute care facilities such as nursing homes, SNFs, SNUs, and comprehensive medical rehabilitation facilities. Medicare has long recognized LTCHs as a distinct level of care within the health care continuum. The federal government's prospective payment system ("PPS") now treats the LTCH level of service as distinct with its "own DRG system and ... [its] own case rate reimbursement." (Tr. 108). Under the LTCH PPS, each patient is assigned an LTC- DRG (different than the DRG under the general hospital DRG system) with a corresponding payment rate that is weighted based on the patient diagnosis and acuity. The Parties The Agency is the state agency responsible for administering the CON Program and licensing LTCHs and other hospital facilities pursuant to the authority of Health Facility and Services Development Act, Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. Select-Palm Beach is the applicant for a free-standing 60-bed LTCH in "east Central Palm Beach County," Select Ex. 1, stamped page 12, near JFK Medical Center in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9661, was denied by the Agency. Select-Palm Beach is a wholly owned subsidiary of Select Medical Corporation, which provides long term acute care services at 83 LTCHs in 24 states, four of which are freestanding hospitals. The other 79 are each "hospitals-in-a- hospital" ("HIH" or "LTCH HIH"). Kindred is the applicant for a 70-bed LTCH to be located in the north central portion of Palm Beach County in AHCA District 9. Its application, CON No. 9662, was denied by the Agency. Kindred is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. ("Kindred Healthcare"). Kindred Healthcare operates 73 LTCHs, 59 of which are freestanding, according to the testimony of Mr. Novak. See Tr. 56-57. Kindred Healthcare has been operating LTCHs since 1985 and has operated them in Florida for more than 15 years. At the time of the submission of Kindred's application, Kindred Healthcare's six LTCHs in Florida were Kindred-North Florida, a 60-bed LTCH in Pinellas County, AHCA District 5; Kindred-Central Tampa, with 102 beds, and Kindred-Bay Area- Tampa, with 73 beds, both in Hillsborough County, in AHCA District 6; Kindred-Ft. Lauderdale with 64 beds and Kindred- Hollywood with 124 beds, both in Broward County, ACHA District 10; and Kindred-Coral Gables, with 53 beds, in Dade County, AHCA District 11. The Applications and AHCA's Review The applications were submitted in the first application cycle of 2003. Select-Palm Beach's application is CON No. 9661; Kindred's is CON No. 9662. Select-Palm Beach estimates its total project costs to be $12,856,139. Select-Palm Beach has not yet acquired the site for its proposed LTCH, but did include in its application a map showing three priority site locations, with its preferred site, designated "Site 1," located near JFK Medical Center. At $12,937,419, Kindred's estimate of its project cost is slightly more than Select-Palm Beach's. The exact site of Kindred's proposed LTCH had not been determined at the time of hearing. Kindred's preference, however, is to locate in the West Palm Beach area in the general vicinity of St. Mary's Hospital, in the northern portion of Palm Beach County along the I-95 corridor. This is approximately 15 to 20 miles north of Select's preferred location for its LTCH. There is no LTCH in the five-county service area that comprises District 9: Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. There are two LTCHs in adjacent District 10 (to the south). They have a total of 188 beds and an average occupancy of 80 percent. The Agency views LTCH care as a district-wide service primarily for Medicare patients. At the time of the filing of the applications, the population in District 9 was over 1.6 million, including about 400,000 in the age cohort 65 and over. About 70 percent of the District 9 population lives in Palm Beach County. More than 70 percent of the District's general acute care hospitals are located in that county. Kindred's preferred location for its LTCH is approximately 40 to 50 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH; Select-Palm Beach is approximately 25 to 35 miles from the closest District 10 LTCH. The locations of Select Palm-Beach's and Kindred's proposed LTCHs are complementary. The SAAR Following its review of the two applications, AHCA issued its State Agency Action Report ("SAAR"). Section G., of the report, entitled "RECOMMENDATION," states: "Deny Con #9661 and CON #9662." Agency Ex. 2, p. 43. On June 11, 2003, the report was signed by Karen Rivera, Health Services and Facilities Consultant Supervisor Certificate of Need, and Mr. Gregg as the Chief of the Bureau of Health Facility Regulation. It contained a section entitled "Authorization for Agency Action" that states, "[a]uthorized representatives of the Agency for Health Care Administration adopted the recommendations contained herein and released the State Agency Action Report." Agency Ex. 2, p. 44. The adoption of the recommendations is the functional equivalent of preliminary denial of the applications. In Section F. of the SAAR under the heading of "Need," (Agency Ex. 2, p. 40), the Agency explained its primary bases for denial; it concluded that the applicants had not shown need for an LTCH in AHCA District 9. The discussions for the two, although not precisely identical, are quite similar: Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc.(CON #9661): The applicant's two methodological approaches to demonstrate need are not supported by any specific discharge studies or other data, including DRG admission criteria from area hospitals regarding potential need. The applicant also failed to provide any supporting documentation from area physicians or other providers regarding potential referrals. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C. (CON #9662): The various methodological approaches presented are not supported by any specific DRG admission criteria from area hospitals suggesting potential need. The applicant provided numerous letters of support for the project from area hospitals, physicians and case managers. However, the number of potential referrals of patients needing LTCH services was not quantified. It was further not demonstrated that patients that qualify for LTCH services are not currently being served or that an access problem exists for residents in District 9. Id. At hearing, the Agency's witness professed no disagreement with the SAAR and continued to maintain the same bases contained in the SAAR for the denials of the two applications The SAAR took no issue with either applicant's ability to provide quality care. It concluded that funding for each applicant was likely to be available and that each project appeared to be financially feasible once operating. The SAAR further stated that there were no major architectural concerns regarding Kindred's proposed facility design, but noted reservations regarding the need for further study and revision of Select Palm-Beach's proposed surgery/procedure wing, as well as cost uncertainties for Select Palm Beach because of such potential revisions. By the time of final hearing, however, the parties had stipulated to the reasonableness of each applicant's proposed costs and methods of construction. The parties stipulated to the satisfaction of a number of the statutory CON criteria by the two applicants. The parties agreed that the applications complied with the content and review process requirements of sections 408.037 and 409.039, Florida Statutes, with one exception. Select reserved the issue of the lack of a Year 2 of Schedule 6, (Staffing) in Kindred's application. The form of Schedule 6 provided by AHCA to Kindred (unlike other schedules of the application) does not clearly indicate that a second year of staffing data must be provided. The remainder of the criteria stipulated and the positions of the parties as articulated in testimony at hearing and in the proposed orders that were submitted leave need as the sole issue of consequence with one exception: whether Kindred has demonstrated that its project is financially feasible in the long term. Kindred's Long Term Financial Feasibility Select-Palm Beach contends that Kindred's project is not financially feasible in the long term for two reasons. They relate to Kindred's application and are stated in Select Palm Beach's proposed order: Kindred understated property taxes[;] Kindred completely fails to include in its expenses on Schedule 8, patient medical assistance trust fund (PMATF) taxes [citation omitted]. Proposed Recommended Order of Select-Palm Beach, Inc., p. 32, Finding of Fact 97. Raised after the proceeding began at DOAH by Select- Palm Beach, these two issues were not considered by AHCA when it conducted its review of Kindred's application because the issues were not apparent from the face of the application. AHCA's Review of Kindred's Application Kindred emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on April 20, 2001, under a plan of reorganization. With respect to the events that led to the bankruptcy proceeding and the need to review prior financial statements, AHCA made the following finding in the SAAR: Under the plan [of reorganization], the applicant [Kindred] adopted the fresh start accounting provision of SOP 90-7. Under fresh start accounting, a new reporting entity is created and the recorded amounts of assets and liabilities are adjusted to reflect their estimated fair values. Accordingly, the prior period financial statements are not comparable to the current period statements and will not be considered in this analysis. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30. The financial statements provided by Kindred as part of its application show that Kindred Healthcare, Kindred's parent, is a financially strong company. The information contained in Kindred's CON application filed in 2003 included Kindred Healthcare's financial statements from the preceding calendar year. Kindred Healthcare's Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2002, showed "Income from Operations" to be more than $33 million, and net cash provided by operating activities (cash flow) of over $248 million for the period. Its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2002, showed cash and cash equivalents of over $244 million and total assets of over $1.6 billion. In light of the information contained in Kindred's CON application, the SAAR concluded with regard to short term financial feasibility: Based on the audited financial statements of the applicant, cash on hand and cash flows, if they continue at the current level, would be sufficient to fund this project as proposed. Funding for all capital projects, with the support of its parent, is likely to be available as needed. Agency Ex. 2, p. 30 (emphasis supplied). The SAAR recognized that Kindred projected a "year two operating loss for the hospital of $287,215." Agency Ex. 2, p. Nonetheless, the SAAR concludes on the issue of financial feasibility, "[w]ith continued operational support from the parent company, this project [Kindred's] is considered financially feasible." Id. The Agency did not have the information, however, at the time it reviewed Kindred's application that Kindred understated property taxes and omitted the Public Medicaid Trust Fund and Medical Assistance Trust Fund ("PMATF") "provider tax" of 1.5 percent that would be imposed on Kindred's anticipated revenues of $11,635,919 as contended by Select-Palm Beach. Consistent with Select Palm-Beach's general contentions about property taxes and PMATF taxes, "Kindred acknowledges that it likely understated taxes to be incurred in the operation of its facility." Kindred's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 50, p. 19. The parties agree, moreover, that the omitted PMATF tax is reasonably projected to be $175,000. They do not agree, however, as to the impact of the PMATF tax on year two operating loss. The difference between the two (approximately $43,000) is attributable to a corporate income tax benefit deduction claimed by Kindred so that the combination of the application's projected loss, the omitted PMATF tax, and the deduction yields a year two operating loss of approximately $419,000. Without taking into consideration the income tax benefit, Select-Palm Beach contends that adding in the PMATF tax produces a loss of $462,000. Kindred and Select-Palm Beach also disagree over the projection of property taxes by approximately $50,000. Kindred projects that the property taxes in year two of operation will be approximately $225,000 instead of the $49,400 listed in the application. Select-Palm Beach projects that they will be $50,000 higher at approximately $275,000. Whether Kindred's or Select-Palm Beach's figures are right, Kindred makes two points. First, if year two revenues and expenses, adjusted for underestimated and omitted taxes, are examined on a quarterly basis, the fourth quarter of year two has a better bottom line than the earlier quarters. Not only will the fourth quarter bottom line be better, but, using Kindred's figures, the fourth quarter of year two of operations is profitable. Second, and most importantly given the Agency's willingness to credit Kindred with financial support from its parent, Kindred's application included in its application an interest figure of $1.2 million for year one of operation and $1.03 million for year two. Kindred claims in its proposed recommended order that "[i]n reality ... this project will incur no interest expense as Kindred intends to fund the project out of cash on hand, or operating capital, and would not have to borrow money to construct the project." Id., at paragraph 54, p. 20. Through the testimony of John Grant, Director of Planning and Development for Kindred's parent, Kindred Healthcare, Kindred indicated at hearing that its parent might, indeed, fund the project: A ... Kindred [Healthcare] would likely fund this project out of operating capital. Like I said, in the first nine months of this year Kindred had operating cash flow of approximately $180 million. So it's not as if we would have to actually borrow money to complete a project like this. Q And what was the interest expense that you had budgeted in Year Two for this facility? A $1,032,000. Q ... so is it your statement then that this facility would not owe any interest back to the parent company? A That's correct. Tr. 221-222 (emphasis supplied). If the "financing interest" expense is excluded from Kindred's statement of projected expenses in Schedule 8 of the CON application, using Kindred's revised projections, the project shows a profit of approximately $612,0002 for the second year of operation. If Select-Palm Beach's figures and bottom line loss excludes the "finances interest" expense, the elimination of the expense yields of profit for year two of operations in excess of $500,000. If the support of Kindred's parent is considered as the Agency has signaled its willingness to do and provided that the project is, in fact, funded by Kindred Healthcare rather than financed through some other means that would cause Kindred to incur interest expense, Kindred's project is financially feasible in the long term. With the exception of the issue regarding Kindred's long term financial feasibility, as stated above, taken together, the stipulation and agreements of the parties, the Agency's preliminary review contained in the SAAR, and the evidence at hearing, all distill the issues in this case to one overarching issue left to be resolved by this Recommended Order: need for long term care hospital beds in District 9. Need for the Proposals From AHCA's perspective prior to the hearing, the only issue in dispute with respect to the two applications is need. This point was made clear by Mr. Gregg's testimony at hearing in answer to a question posed by counsel for Select-Palm Beach: Q. ... Assuming there was sufficient need for 130 beds in the district is there any reason why both applicants shouldn't be approved in this case, assuming that need? A. No. (Tr. 398). Both applicants contend that the application each submitted is superior to the other. Neither, however, at this point in the proceeding, has any objection to approval of the other application provided its own application is approved. Consistent with its position that both applications may be approved, Select-Palm Beach presented testimony through its health care planner Patricia Greenberg3 that there was need in District 9 for both applicants' projects. Her testimony, moreover, rehabilitated the single Kindred methodology of three that yielded numeric need less than the 130 beds proposed by both applications: Q ... you do believe that there is a need for both in the district. A I believe there's a need for two facilities in the district. Q It could support two facilities? A Oh, absolutely. Q And the disagreement primarily relates to the conservative approach of Kindred in terms of not factoring in out-migration and the narrowing the DRG categories? A Correct. ... Kindred actually had three models. Two of them support both facilities, but it's the GMLOS model that I typically rely on, and it didn't on the surface support both facilities. That's why I reconciled the two, and I believe that's the difference, is just the 50 DRGs and not including the out-migration. That would boost their need above the 130, and two facilities would give people alternatives, it would foster competition, and it would really improve access in that market. Tr. 150-51. Need for the applications, therefore, is the paramount issue in this case. Since both applicants are qualified to operate an LTCH in Florida, if need is proven for the 130 beds, then with the exception of Kindred's long term financial feasibility, all parties agree that there is no further issue: both applications should be granted. No Agency Numeric Need Methodology The Agency has not established a numeric need methodology for LTCH services. Consequently, it does not publish a fixed-need pool for LTCHs. Nor does the Agency have "any policy upon which to determine need for the proposed beds or service." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)1. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.008(2), which governs "Fixed Need Pools" (the "Fixed Need Pools Rule") states that if "no agency policy exist" with regard to a needs assessment methodology: [T]he applicant will be responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology which must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following topics, except where they are inconsistent with the applicable statutory or rule criteria: Population demographics and dynamics; Availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict or both; Medical treatment trends; and Market conditions. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)2. The Fixed Need Pools Rule goes on to elaborate in subparagraph (e)3 that "[t]he existence of unmet need will not be based solely on the absence of a health service, health care facility, or beds in the district, subdistrict, region or proposed service area." Population, Demographics and Dynamics The first of the four topics to be addressed when an applicant is responsible for demonstrating need through a needs assessment methodology is "population, demographics and dynamics." The Agency has not defined service areas for LTCHs. Nonetheless, from a health planning perspective, it views LTCH services as being provided district-wide primarily for Medicare patients. Consistent with the Agency's view, Select-Palm Beach identified the entire district, that is, all of AHCA District 9, as its service area. It identified Palm Beach County, one of the five counties in AHCA District 9, as its primary service area. In identifying the service area for Select-Palm Beach, Ms. Greenberg drew data from various sources: population estimates for Palm Beach County and surrounding areas; the number of acute care hospital beds in the area; the number of LTCH beds in the area; the types of patients treated at acute care hospitals; and the lengths of stay of the patients treated at those hospitals. AHCA District 9 has more elderly than any other district in the State, and Palm Beach County has more than any other county except for Dade. Palm Beach County residents comprise 71% of the District 9 population. It is reasonably projected that the elderly population (the "65 and over" age cohort) in Palm Beach County is projected to grow at the rate of 8 percent by 2008. The "65 and over" age cohort is significant because the members of that cohort are most likely to utilize hospital services, including LTCH services. Its members are most likely to suffer complications from illness and surgical procedures and more likely to have co-morbidity conditions that require long- term acute care. Persons over 65 years of age comprise approximately 80 percent of the patient population of LTCH facilities. Both Select-Palm Beach and Kindred project that approximately 80 percent of their admissions will come from Medicare patients. Since 90 percent of admissions to an LTCH come from acute care facilities, most of the patient days expected at Select-Palm Beach's proposed LTCH will originate from residents in its primary service area, Palm Beach County. When looking at the migration pattern for patients at acute care facilities within Palm Beach County, the majority (90 percent) come from Palm Beach County residents. Thus, Select- Palm Beach's projected primary service area is reasonable. Just as Select-Palm Beach, Kindred proposes to serve the entire District. Kindred proposes that its facility be based in Palm Beach County because of the percentage of the district's population in the county as well as because more than 70% of the district's general acute care hospitals are in the county. Its selection of the District as its service area, consistent with the Agency's view, is reasonable. Currently there are no LTCHs in District 9. Availability, Utilization and Quality of Like Services The second topic is "availability, utilization and quality of like services." There are no "like" services available to District residents in the District. Select-Palm Beach and Kindred, therefore, contend that they meet the criteria of the second topic. There are like services in other AHCA Districts. For example, AHCA District 10 has at total of 188 beds at two Kindred facilities in Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood. The Agency, however, did not present evidence of their quality, that they were available or to what extent they are utilized by the residents of AHCA District 9. Medical Treatment Trends The third topic is medical treatment trends. Caring for patients with chronic and long term care needs is becoming increasingly more important as the population ages and as medical technology continues to emerge that prolongs life expectancies. Through treatment provided the medically complex and critically ill with state of the art mechanical ventilators, metabolic analyzers, and breathing monitors, LTCHs meet needs beyond the capability of the typical general acute care hospitals. In this way, LTCHs fill a niche in the continuum of care that addresses the needs of a small but growing patient population. Treatment for these patients in an LTCH, who otherwise would be cared for without adequate reimbursement to the general acute care hospital or moved to an alternative setting with staff and services inadequate to meet their needs, is a medical trend. Market Conditions The fourth topic to be addressed by the applicant is market conditions. The federal government's development of a distinctive prospective payment system for LTCHs (LTC-DRG), has created a market condition favorable to LTCHs. General acute care hospitals face substantial losses for the medically complex patient who uses far greater resources than expected on the basis of individual diagnoses. Medicare covers between 80 and 85 percent of LTCH patients. The remaining patients are covered by private insurance, managed care and Medicaid. LTCH programs allow for shorter lengths of stay in a general acute care facility, reduces re-admissions and provide more discharges to home. These benefits are increasingly recognized. Numeric Need Analysis Kindred presented a set of needs assessment methodologies that yielded numeric need for the beds applied for by Kindred. Select-Palm Beach did the same. Unlike Kindred, however, all of the needs assessment methodologies presented by Select-Palm Beach demonstrated numeric need in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applications. Select-Palm Beach's methodologies, overall, are superior to Kindred's. Select-Palm Beach used two sets of needs assessment methodologies and sensitivity testing of one of the sets that confirmed the methodology's reasonableness. The two sets or needs assessment methodologies are: (1) a use rate methodology and (2) length of stay methodologies. The use rate methodology yielded projected bed need for Palm Beach County alone in excess of the 130 beds proposed by the two applicants. For the year "7/05 - 6/06" the bed need is projected to be 256; for the year "7/06 - 6/07" the bed need is projected to be 261; and, for the year "7/07 - 6/08" the bed need is projected to be 266. See Select Ex. 1, Bates Stamp p. 000036 and the testimony of Ms. Greenberg at tr. 114. If the use rate analysis had been re-computed to include two districts whose data was excluded from the analysis, the bed need yielded for Palm Beach County alone was 175 beds, a numeric need still in excess of the 130 beds proposed by both applicants. The use rate methodology is reasonable.4 The length of stay methodologies are also reasonable. These two methodologies also yielded numeric need for beds in excess of the 130 beds proposed. The two methodologies yielded need for 167 beds and 250 beds. Agency Denial The Agency's general concerns about LTCHs are not without basis. For many years, there were almost no LTCH CON applications filed with the Agency. A change occurred in 2002. The change in the LTCH environment in the last few years put AHCA in the position of having "to adapt to a rapidly changing situation in terms of [Agency] understanding of what has been going on in recent years with long-term care hospitals." (Tr. 358.) "... [I]n the last couple of years long-term care hospital applications have become [AHCA's] most common type of application." (Tr. 359.) At the time of the upsurge in applications, there was "virtually nothing ... in the academic literature about long- term care hospitals ... that could [provide] ... an understanding of what was going on ... [nor was there anything] in the peer reviewed literature that addressed long-term care hospitals" id., and the health care planning issues that affected them. Two MedPAC reports came out, one in 2003 and another in 2004. The 2003 report conveyed the information that the federal government was unable to identify patients appropriate for LTCH services, services that are overwhelmingly Medicare funded, because of overlap of LTCH services with other types of services. The 2004 report gave an account of the federal government decision to change its payment policy for a type of long-term care hospitals that are known as "hospitals-within- hospitals" (tr. 368) so that "hospitals within hospitals as of this past summer [2004] can now only treat 25 percent of their patients from the host hospital." Id. Both reports roused concerns for AHCA. First, if appropriate LTCH patients cannot be identified and other types of services overlap appropriately with LTCH services, AHCA cannot produce a valid needs assessment methodology. The second produces another concern. In the words of Mr. Gregg, The problem ... with oversupply of long-term care hospital beds is that it creates an incentive for providers to seek patient who are less appropriate for the service. What we know now is that only the sickest patient ... with the most severe conditions are truly appropriate for long-term care hospital placement. * * * ... [T]he MedPAC report most recently shows us that the greatest indicator of utilization of long-term care hospital services is the mere availability of those services. Tr. 368-369. The MedPAC reports, themselves, although marked for identification, were not admitted into evidence. Objections to their admission (in particular, Kindred's) were sustained because they had not been listed by AHCA on the stipulation required by the Pre-hearing Order of Instructions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration that: approves Select-Palm Beach's application, CON 9661; and approves Kindred's application CON 9662 with the condition that financing of the project be provided by Kindred Healthcare. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The parties have stipulated that these cases are properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings for de novo review of the Petitioners' applications for a certificate of need and that this action is controlled by the provisions of Chapters 120 and 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10-5 and 28- 5, F.A.C. The parties have further stipulated that portions of Section 481.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), and its counterparts under Section 10-5.11, F.A.C., have either been met or are not applicable. The portions of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which the parties have stipulated have been met or do not apply and the parties' summary of the content of those subsections are as follows: (3) both applicants have the ability to manage and operate facilities such as those applied for; (6) need in the services district for special equipment and services not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas; (7) need for research and training programs; (8) health and management manpower and personnel only. The remaining parts of (8) remain in issue; (10) special needs and circumstances of health maintenance organizations; (11) needs and circumstances of those entities which provide a special portion of their services or resources, or both, to individuals not residing in the service district. The parties stipulated that the remaining portions of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), remain in issue. Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the following issues require resolution: Is there a need for a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida? Do the Petitioners' proposals meet the criteria of Sections 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which have not been stipulated to as having been met or as not being applicable? If a need exists for only one proposal and both Petitioners meet the appropriate criteria, which of the Petitioners should be granted a certificate of need? Should a certificate of need for a computerized axial tomography scanner (hereinafter referred to as a "CAT Scanner") be issued to AMI? Does Florida Hospital and/or OGH have the requisite standing to take part as parties in these proceedings?
Findings Of Fact AMI is a publicly traded for-profit Delaware corporation which owned, managed or operated 103 hospitals in the United States and 29 hospitals outside the United States as of January, 1985. AMI also owns, manages or operates a number of other health care facilities, i.e., psychiatric care facilities and freestanding outpatient surgery centers. AMI also owns a number of subsidiary corporations which provide a variety of technologies and services in support of its hospitals. In Florida, AMI owns 100 percent or a majority interest of 9 hospitals. In its proposed findings of fact AMI has indicated that it "operates" these 9 hospitals. The record supports this finding, although the record also supports a finding that the 9 hospitals are separate legal entities. AMI initially filed a letter of intent to file a certificate of need application with the Department for a 175-bed hospital in Orange County, Florida, for review in the August 15, 1983, batching cycle. The letter of intent was rejected because it had not been timely submitted to the local health council. On October 12, 1983, AMI filed a second letter of intent with the Department in which it informed the Department that AMI "or a to-be-formed wholly-owned subsidiary of AMI intends to file a Certificate of Need application for a 175-bed hospital to be located along Highway 50 in the vicinity of the University of Central Florida in Orange County, Florida." On October 19, 1983, seven days after the letter of intent was filed, Articles of Incorporation were filed for University Community Hospital of Orlando, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "UCH, Inc."). UCH, Inc., is a for-profit Florida corporation. It currently owns no assets. AMI's application, which was reviewed in the November 15, 1983, batching cycle, was denied by the Department. AMI subsequently reduced the number of beds it had requested in its application from 175 to 100 beds. No change in the application with regard to the services to be provided has been made by AMI. Based upon its amended application AMI has proposed to construct and operate a 100-bed "full-service" acute care hospital to be located in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposed hospital will include a separate outpatient unit, an on-site stationary CAT Scanner, a 24-hour a day emergency room and birthing rooms and will provide therapeutic and diagnostic inpatient services, and community outreach and wellness programs. Tertiary care services will not be provided at the proposed hospital but AMI intends to contract with existing providers of tertiary care services to provide those services to its patients. AMI has projected that the total cost of its proposal will be $19,698,831.00. This figure includes $566,700.00 for architectural and engineering fees, $6,268,747.00 for equipment, $1,025,000.00 for the acquisition of land, $10,095,000.00 for construction, $250,000.00 for start-up costs and $1,285,385.00 for capitalized interest. The proposed AMI facility will include separate entrances for outpatient surgery and the emergency room. The facility has been designed to take into account the trend in health care to provide outpatient and ambulatory services. Two of the four proposed operating rooms in the facility will be used primarily for outpatient surgery. The 8 birthing rooms to be included in the facility are designed in recognition of the trend in health care to provide a room in which the family can participate in the birthing process. A delivery room will also be provided. Finally, classroom space will be provided in the facility for allied health services training and continuing education. Winter Park. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., is a not for-profit Florida corporation. It operates Winter Park, a 301 bed hospital in Winter Park, Orange County, Florida. The hospital provides a full range of medical services including a full-body CAT Scanner. Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., qualifies for exemption from federal income tax under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"), because it is an organization designated in Section 501(c)(3) of the Code. On October 31, 1983, Winter Park filed its letter of intent to file an application for a certificate of need with the Department in the same batching cycle as AMI. In its application Winter Park proposed to build a 100-bed acute care hospital in Orange County, Florida. The proposed 100 beds will consist of 84 medical/surgical beds, 8 obstetric beds and 8 ICU/CCU beds. The proposal does not include a CAT Scanner. Winter Park has projected that the total cost of its proposed facility will be $16,015,000.00. This amount includes $75,000.00 for project development, $50,000.00 for financing, $685,000.00 for professional services, $10,395,900.00 for construction, $4,457,700.00 for equipment and $351,400.00 for other related cost. Florida Hospital Florida Hospital is a not-for-project hospital owned by Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt, a division of the Adventist Church. Florida Hospital presently consists of 3 campuses: the main campus in Orlando and satellite campuses in Altamonte Springs, Seminole County, Florida and Apopka, Orange County, Florida. In the 75 years since the hospital was begun it has grown from a 20 bed hospital to its present size of 959 beds. Florida Hospital is a tertiary acute care hospital providing a full range of services including ambulatory surgery, a stationary full-body CAT Scanner, general inpatient medical and surgical services, obstetrics, pediatrics, psychiatric services, substance abuse treatment, open heart surgery, oncology and other services. Florida Hospital is involved in a number of teaching programs and internship programs. It is a teaching hospital with a number of positions dedicated to teaching, including a director of education. Florida Hospital would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is granted to either Petitioner. Florida Hospital has standing to intervene. OGH OGH is a not-for-profit 171-bed hospital located in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. It was founded in 1941 and has operated as a not-for-profit facility since 1945. OGH is licensed by the State of Florida as an acute care general hospital. The services provided by OGH include obstetrics, outpatient services, general inpatient medical and surgical services, pediatrics, a mobile CAT Scanner and other services. OGH would be substantially affected if a certificate of need is issued to either Petitioner. OGH has standing to intervene. THE NEED FOR ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BEDS. Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C. Pursuant to Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), the Department is responsible for determining whether health care facilities and services are needed in the State of Florida. To fulfill its responsibility with regard to acute care hospital beds, the Department has promulgated Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides the following Department goal: The Department will consider applications for acute care hospital beds in context with all applicable statutory and rule criteria. The Department will not normally approve applications for new or additional acute care hospital beds in any departmental service district if approval of an application would cause the number of beds in that district to exceed the number of beds calculated to be needed according to the methodology included in paragraphs (f),(g) and (h) below. A favorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided for in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need. An unfavorable Certificate of Need determination may be made when a calculated bed need exists but other criteria specified in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, are not met. Based upon this Department goal, the need for acute care hospital beds is first determined by service district based upon the methodology included in Section 10-5.11(23)(f)-(h), F.A.C. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Formula"). For purposes of the Formula, acute care beds include general medical and surgical, intensive care, pediatric and obstetrical beds. Section 10 5.11(23)(c), F.A.C. The Petitioners are proposing to build a hospital with general medical and surgical, intensive care and obstetrical beds. Therefore, the Formula must be applied to determine if there is a need for their proposed hospitals. Under the Formula, acute care bed need is to be determined five years in the future: 1990 in these cases. Generally, acute care bed need is determined under the Formula based upon two age cohort population projections, statewide service-specific discharge rates, statewide service-specific lengths of stay, statewide service-specific occupancy standards and patient flow adjustments. See Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C. The bed need for the service district determined in accordance with Section 10-5.11(23)(f), F.A.C., is adjusted based upon the service district's historical use rate and projected occupancy rate. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The historical use rate to be used under the Formula is for the three most recent years and is based upon utilization of hospitals located in the service district. After applying the adjustment of Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., one final adjustment is required to complete the determination of acute care bed need under the Formula. Section 10-5.11(23)(h), F.A.C. provides for an adjustment to reflect peak demand in the service district. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing of these cases, application of the Formula results in a net acute care bed need of 89 beds or 146 beds, or an excess of 464 beds. These projections are all for the Department's District 7, which consists of Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties, The Petitioners are proposing to build new hospitals in Orange County. The Formula projection of a net acute care bed need in District 7 of 89 beds is an outdated Department application of the Formula. The 146 net acute care bed need projection for District 7 is the Department's most current application of the Formula, dated March 12, 1985. The Department's most recent application of the Formula is not based upon a proper application of the adjustment for the District 7 projected occupancy rate and historical use rate under Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. In making this adjustment, the Department relied upon utilization data in determining the District 7 historical use rate from 1981, 1982 and 1983. Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C., requires that the historical use rate be based upon the most recent three years available. In these cases 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data was available to the Department. The fact that incorrect utilization data was used in determining the District 7 historical use rate was confirmed by Mr. Eugene Nelson, the Director of the Office of Community Medical Facilities of the Department, Mr. Steve Windham, the Executive Director of the Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Inc., and Mr. Lawrence W. Margolis, an expert health planner. Mr. Nelson also indicated that if 1982, 1983 and 1984 utilization data had been used by the Department in applying the Formula a more "contemporary picture of what's actually happening" would have be given. Mr. Margolis did apply the Formula using the most current utilization data to calculate the historical use rate of District 7. Based upon the data used by the Department in its most recent projection of acute care bed need for District 7, but substituting the current utilization data of 1982, 1983 and 1984, an application of the Formula results in a projected total acute care bed need in 1989 for District 7 of 4,416 beds. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved beds in District 7. Therefore, a proper application of the Formula based upon the most current data indicates that District 7 will have an excess of 464 acute care beds in 1989. A finding that District 7 will have an excess of acute care beds in 1989 is supported by the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in District 7. This reduction in hospital utilization, which began in 1982, has been evidenced by reductions in occupancy rates, average lengths of stay and admissions. This trend is likely to continue for an additional two to four years. The trend is sufficient to cause an excess in acute care beds despite increases in population. To add another 100 acute care hospital beds to Orange County would further reduce utilization. The reduced utilization of hospitals could become worse when new hospital beds are opened by Florida Hospital (210 beds) and Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County (81 beds). The opening of these beds could create a further excess of beds in District 7. There are a number of factors which have contributed to the decline in the use of hospitals: (1) there has been an increase in the use of health maintenance organizations and preferred provider organizations; (2) the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups, a method of reimbursement now being used by Medicare; and (3) there has been an increase in the use of outpatient medical services. Health maintenance organizations in Orange County alone could decrease patient days in hospitals from 800 days per 1,000 population to 350 days per 1,000 population. Because of the introduction of Diagnostic Related Groups by Medicare, hospitals are trying to discharge patients as quickly as possible. Finally, there are 8 to 10 freestanding ambulatory surgery centers approved for Orange County which are, or will be, providing outpatient medical services. All of these factors have reduced hospital utilization in District 7. The current trend of reduced utilization of hospitals was recognized by Mr. Mark Richardson, AMI's expert in health planning. Mr. Richardson therefore recommended that AMI reduce its application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a hospital in Orange County from 175 acute care beds to 100 beds, which AMI did. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that District 7 will have an excess of at least 464 acute care beds in 1989 according to a proper application of the Formula of Section 10 5.11(23), F.A.C. Although insufficient evidence was presented at the final hearing to forecast the exact acute care bed need for District 7 under the Formula for 1990, it does not appear that there will be any need for acute care beds in District 7 in 1990 in light of the fact that the trend toward decreased utilization of hospitals will probably continue for 2 to 4 more years. In fact, the evidence supports the conclusion that District 7 will continue to have an excess of beds in 1990. AMI has proposed findings of fact to the effect that there has been too much concern with "over-bedding" based upon computations such as those provided in the Formula. AMI further proposed findings of fact to the effect that a more rational approach to health planning "should be assuming adequate supply as opposed to considering a negative approach." These proposed findings of fact are rejected. The Department's rules and in particular, the Formula, are the law and will be followed in these cases. Whether "over-bedding" is over emphasized, the Formula clearly indicates that District 7 will be greatly overbedding in 1990. In addition to requiring an application of the Formula to determine acute care bed need for each Department service district, Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., requires that local health councils adopt acute care service subdistricts as an element of their local health plans. Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. District 7 has been divided along county lines into four subdistricts: Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Brevard Counties. Section 10-17.008, F.A.C. Prior to this proceeding AMI challenged the validity of Section 10- 17.008, F.A.C., the rule establishing subdistricts along county lines in District 7. The rule was upheld as valid in American Medical International, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 83- 3092R, September 28, 1984. Therefore, Orange, Seminole, Brevard and Osceola Counties constitute the only recognized subdistricts in District 7 for purposes of allocating acute care bed need in District 7. Section 10-5.11(23)(e), F.A.C., further provides that the district acute care bed need as determined by application of the Formula is to be allocated to each subdistrict established pursuant to Section 10-5.11(23)(d), F.A.C. This allocation of acute care bed need to the subdistricts is to be made consistent with Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), which provides that the local health council is to develop a district health plan and submit it to the Department. Elements of the district health plan necessary in the Department's review of certificate of need applications are required to be adopted by the Department as a part of its rules. Section 381.494(7)(b), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Local Health Council of East Central Florida, Incorporated (hereinafter referred to as the "Council"), has developed a district health plan which includes the methodology it employs to allocate the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts of District 7. That plan has also been submitted to the Department. The Department, however, has not adopted the district health plan for District 7 in its rules. This does not mean, however, that evidence pertaining to the Council's method of allocation is not relevant to, or should be ignored for purposes of, this proceeding. Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, Orange County has an excess of acute care beds. This is true even if it is assumed that the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need for 89 or 146 acute care beds in District 7 is correct. According to Mr. Windham, application of the Council's subdistrict allocation methodology to the Department's determination under the Formula that there is a need in District 7 for 89 acute care beds indicates that Orange County ",4 will have an excess of 81 acute care beds and that Seminole County will have an excess of 36 acute care beds. Mr. Windham's application of the Council's methodology for allocating bed need to the subdistricts of District 7 was based upon the Department's application of the Formula without the benefit of the more current utilization data. Therefore, if the most current data had been used, the projected excess beds for Orange County would be even greater. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the Petitioners have failed to prove that there is any need under Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., for additional acute care beds in District 7 or in Orange or Seminole Counties. In fact, under Section 10- 5.11(23), F.A.C., there is a significant excess of acute care beds projected for Orange and Seminole Counties and District 7 as a whole. Winter Park has conceded this conclusion. AMI has in essence argued that any evidence as to the application of the Formula based upon the most current utilization data should be ignored because the Department has not yet officially applied the Formula based upon such data. Mr. Margolis, an expert in health planning, was clearly capable of applying the Formula based upon the most current information. His conclusions were also supported by Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Windham's testimony. AMI has in essence also argued that any evidence as to how acute care bed need in District 7 under the Formula should be allocated to the properly designated subdistricts should be ignored because the Council's methods of allocation have not been adopted as part of the Department's rules. Mr. Windham's unrebutted testimony, however, supports a finding that the Council's method of allocating the District 7 acute care bed need to the subdistricts is a reasonable method for health planning purposes. The determination that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County does not necessarily preclude the issuance of a certificate of need for a new hospital to either or both of the Petitioners. Section 10- 5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that the Department will "not normally" approve an application if such an approval would result in acute care beds in excess of those needed as determined under the Formula. The rule goes on to provide that an application may be approved "when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes, demonstrate need." Bed Need Based upon the Petitioner's Alternative to the Formula. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that there is a need for 146 acute care beds in District 7 based upon an application of the Formula. That finding of fact has been rejected, supra, because it was based upon the use of outdated utilization data. The Petitioner also failed to prove that there is a need for beds in Orange County based upon an application of the Formula. Winter Park's position throughout this proceeding and AMI's alternative position has been essentially that the population of east Orange County where the Petitioners propose to locate their facilities and parts of Seminole County do not have adequate accessibility to acute care hospital beds. In determining whether an application for a certificate of need should be issued for acute care hospital beds, Section 381.484(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), provides that the accessibility . . of like and existing health care services and hospitals in the service district of the applicant" should be considered. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that like and existing health care services are not accessible in portions of Orange and Seminole Counties and therefore there is a need for their proposed hospitals. The Petitioners' Medical Service Areas. AMI has identified and proposed to serve portions of Orange and Seminole Counties which purportedly have an access problem which it has designated as a "medical service area." AMI projects that the majority of its patients will be attracted from its medical service area (hereinafter referred to as an MSA) AMI's MSA consists of most of east Orange County and southeastern Seminole County. Generally, the MSA boundary runs south along most of the western shore of Lake Jessup in Seminole County, to and along Tuscawilla Road (Seminole and Orange County), to and along Highway 436 in Orange County, south to the Bee Line Expressway, east along the Bee Line Expressway to Highway 15, south along Highway 15 to the Orange-Osceola County line, east and then north along the Orange County line to the Seminole County line and along the Seminole County line north and then west to Lake Jessup. Winter Park has also identified and proposed to serve a MSA very similar to, although a little smaller than, AMI's MSA. The difference in size amounts to only a difference of 1000 less population in Winter Park's MSA. The portion of east Orange County included in the MSAs represents a distinct geopolitical and economic base. Each of the Petitioners and Florida Hospital presented testimony by experts in the field of demographics. Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D., for AMI, William J. Serow, Ph.D, for Winter Park and Stanley Smith, Ph.D., for Florida Hospital. Based upon their testimony, it is clear that the MSAs have experienced a great deal of population and economic growth since 1970 and that this growth will probably continue through 1990. During the period 1980 to 1985, the rate of population growth for Orange and Seminole Counties was 16 percent (23 percent for Seminole County alone). The rate of growth in Winter Park's MSA during this same period was 32 percent. For the period 1985 through 1990 the projected rate of growth for Orange County is 12 percent. The projected rate of growth from 1985 through 1990 for Winter Park's MSA is 23.3 percent. These figures indicate that the rate of growth for Orange County and the MSAs is slowing down. The figures also show that the MSA rate of growth is twice that of Orange and Seminole Counties. Looking at only the rate of growth of an area can be misleading. For example, a 50 percent rate of growth may not be as significant when applied to a population base of 10 as when applied to a larger population base. In terms of actual growth, the evidence proves that Orange County's population growth in terms of additional people is greater than the population growth of the MSAs. The evidence also establishes that population growth in the MSAs is projected to be greater for young adults and women of child bearing age (15 to 44 years of age), that there will be larger families and a greater number of children under 18 years of age in the MSAs than in Orange County as a whole and that the projected population of the MSAs will be newer to the area and generally more mobile than Orange County as a whole. Florida Hospital has suggested that "logic" leads to the conclusion that some of these projected trends will cause a decrease in utilization. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support such a finding of fact. The evidence clearly establishes that population growth in the MSAs will be concentrated between the western boundary of the MSAs at Highway 436 and Alafaya Trail (Highway 419), which is located in the western portion of the MSAs, during the next five years. In fact, more than half of the projected growth of east Orange County will occur in a one and a half mile corridor between Highway 436 and Goldenrod. It will be 5 to 10 years before population growth will begin to expand into any area east of Highway 419. Accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. The Department has promulgated Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1 and 2, F.A.C., for purposes of determining accessibility: Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within an automobile travel time of 30 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population in an urban area subdistrict. Acute care hospital beds should be available and accessible within a maximum automobile travel time of 45 minutes under average travel conditions to at least 90 percent of the population residing in a rural area subdistrict. The terms "urban area" and "rural area" are defined in Section 10- 5.11(23)(a)4 and 5, F.A.C., as follows: Urban Area. Urban area means a county designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, and having 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Rural Area. Rural area means a county not designated as all or part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, as determined by the United States Bureau of the Census, or a county so designated but having fewer than 50,000 persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County meets the definition of an "urban area." It has been designated as part of a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 50,000 or more persons residing in one or more incorporated areas. Orange County is not also a "rural area" as defined above as suggested by OGH although it does have some incorporated areas with less than 50,000 persons. AMI has suggested in its proposed recommended order that Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used only by local health councils in determining subdistrict allocations of acute care bed need and where a subdistrict allocation reveals a surplus of beds in a subdistrict. Although Section 10 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is to be used in the manner suggested by AMI, Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., is not clearly limited to such use. This section of the rule is titled "Geographic Accessibility Considerations." Its provisions are applicable in determining whether a geographic accessibility problem exists in District 7 or in the subdistricts of District 7. AMI, Winter Park and Florida Hospital presented testimony of expert traffic engineers: Mr. William A. Tipton for AMI, Mr. R. Sans Lassiter, P.E., for Winter Park and Mr. Sven Kansman for Florida Hospital. All three of these gentlemen based their travel studies on travel times to and from certain control points. The travel times were then averaged. Florida Hospital has suggested in its proposed recommended order that this method of determining travel times to and from control points and Mr. Tipton's testimony that "you probably wouldn't get as far in a given time going outbound [east" is significant because travel times from the MSAs west into Orlando, where the majority of the existing hospitals are presently located, would be shorter. This conclusion is reasonable. Therefore, travel times for the population of the MSAs to existing Orange County hospitals would be less than indicated by the traffic engineers. Also, the 30 minute contour lines on the traffic engineers' exhibits would extend farther into the MSAs. The studies performed by all three traffic engineers were performed in the same general manner as to the speed of the test vehicles. Test vehicle drivers were instructed to drive at average speed employing the "average car method," the "floating car technique" or the "moving car method." All three methods are essentially the same. The test runs were conducted in November and February by AMI'S expert, in the fall by Winter Park's expert and during the last two weeks of January by Florida Hospital's expert. January to March is the most congested time of the year in Orange County. Only two of the traffic engineers testified that their tests were conducted under "average travel conditions" as required by Section 10- 5.11(23)(i), F.A.C.: Winter Park's and Florida Hospital's traffic engineers. These traffic engineers properly conducted their tests during off-peak and peak hours. Mr. Tipton, AMI's traffic engineer, conducted his tests only during the peak hours of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and only on week days (Monday to Thursday). According to Mr. Tipton, average travel conditions "doesn't mean anything" to a traffic engineer. Average travel conditions does mean something under the rule and to the other two traffic engineers. Mr. Tipton also indicated that the peak hours he conducted his tests during would not show "average travel conditions." Mr. Tipton also admitted that he averaged what amounted to the "worst case scenario" because it represented "real world conditions." Mr. Tipton's "real world conditions," however, is not the test of Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C. Mr. Tipton's tests have been given little weight because of his failure to take into account average travel conditions. None of the exhibits prepared by the three traffic engineers and accepted in evidence (AMI'S composite exhibit 8, Winter Park's exhibit 11 and Florida Hospital's exhibit 10) are totally consistent with the requirements of Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. AMI's composite exhibit 8 includes 30 minute contour lines representing Mr. Tipton's 30 minute drive times from only three hospitals in Orange County and one hospital in Seminole County and only shows the travel times to the east of those hospitals. Winter Park's exhibit 11 shows the 30 minute contour lines for seven hospitals in Orange County and two hospitals in Seminole County and generally only showns the travel times to the east. Florida Hospital's exhibit 10 shows the location of eight hospitals in Orange County, three in Seminole County and three in Brevard County but only shows the total 30 minute contour line for Florida Hospital's Orlando campus. The test under Section 10-5.11(23)(i)1, F.A.C., is whether existing acute care hospital beds are available and accessible within 30 minutes by automobile by 90 percent of the subdistrict's population. In order for AMI and Winter Park to prove that acute care hospital beds are not available and accessible within 30 minutes in Orange County, they needed to prove that more than 10 percent of the population of Orange County cannot access on existing acute care hospital bed within 30 minutes by automobile. In order to prove this crucial fact it is necessary to show the travel time based upon average travel conditions of the entire population of Orange County to all existing acute care hospitals. AMI and Winter Park have failed to do so. The evidence fails to show that more than 10 percent of Orange County's population is more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing Orange County hospitals. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there is an accessibility problem under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Only 1 percent of the population of Orange County residing in the MSAs is located more than 30 minutes by automobile from existing hospitals in Orange and Seminole Counties. This is based upon the 1985 population and the projected 1990 population. In 1985 there are 4,232 people residing in the MSAs more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals. By 1990, there will only be 5,276 people projected to live more than 30 minutes from existing hospitals. These figures are maximum numbers. As indicated, supra, the evidence with regard to population growth in the MSAs proves that the projected population growth will be concentrated in the western portion of the MSAs--the portion of the MSAs closest to where existing hospitals are located. Most of the projected population growth through 1990 in the MSAs will clearly be within 30 minutes of existing hospitals. The projected 1990 population of 5,276 people who will reside more than 30 minutes from an existing Orange County or Seminole County hospital is well below 10 percent of Orange County's total projected population of 596,713. Additionally, the people in the MSAs who reside more than 30 minutes from existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals are probably within 30 minutes of Jess Parrish Hospital in Titusville, Brevard County, Florida. There are no natural obstacles in Orange County which impede or prevent access to existing health care facilities. Well over 90 percent of Orange County's population can access a hospital within 30 minutes driving time. OGH has proposed findings of fact pertaining to the availability of motor vehicle and air ambulance services in Orange County. The accessibility test of Section 10-5.11 (23)(i), F.A.C., requires a consideration of automobile travel times under "average travel conditions," not emergency services. Therefore, these proposed findings of fact and OGH's proposed findings of fact as to the requirements of obtaining a trauma level designation are unnecessary. The evidence also clearly establishes that there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County. The average occupancy rates in District 7, Orange County and Seminole County for 1982, 1983 and 1984 were as follows: 1982 1983 1984 District 7 71.8% 70.34% 61.71% Orange County 69.5% 68.68% 60.80% Seminole County 76.0% 74.20% 59.39% Florida Hospital and OGH have experienced similar declines in utilization similar to those evidenced by these figures. Florida Hospital's utilization rate dropped from 86.3 percent in 1982 to 78.6 percent in 1984 and OGH's rate dropped from 88.5 percent in 1982 to 44.4 percent in 1984. There are currently 4,880 licensed and approved acute care hospital beds in District 7. Based upon the 1984 utilization rate for District 7, over 1,800 acute care beds were empty on an average day in District 7 during 1984; In Orange County, approximately 1,000 acute care beds were empty on average during 1984. As indicated, supra, the decreasing acute care bed utilization rate is expected to continue for 2 to 4 years. Therefore, there are acute care hospital beds available in Orange County at existing hospitals and there will be in 1990. Additionally, new acute care hospital beds have been approved for Orange County and Seminole County which are not yet open: 134 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Orlando campus and 76 acute care beds to be opened by Florida Hospital at its Altamonte Springs campus. Also 81 new beds will be opened in Brevard County. These additional beds will further increase the number of available acute care hospital beds in Orange and Seminole Counties and in District 7. Based upon the foregoing and the fact that there is a large number of unoccupied acute care beds available on average in Orange County, there is no geographic accessibility problem in Orange County or Seminole County under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C. Other Accessibility Considerations. Despite the evidence with regard to geographic accessibility under Section 10-5.11(23)(i), F.A.C., the Petitioners have argued that accessibility to acute care beds is a problem in the MSAs. Mr. Willard Wisler, Winter Park's administrator, although agreeing that "planning studies" indicated no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County, stated: But our posture has been that they have been misallocated, and that the east Orange County [sic) is a greatly underserved area on the basis of the number of hospital beds that are available to the people that live there. The evidence does establish that the majority of the hospitals in Orange County are located in the center of the County, in the City of Orlando, where the majority of the population is located and that there is only one hospital currently located in the MSAs. Currently, 6 percent of Orange County's acute care hospital beds are located in the MSAs at OGH while 19 percent of Orange County's population is located in the MSAs. The Petitioners have characterized this geographic distribution of acute care beds and population as a "maldistribution" of acute care beds. The disparity between the precentage of population and acute care beds in the MSAs will increase in the future because the projected rate of growth in the MSAs is greater than that of Orange County. It is projected that by 1990 22 percent of the Orange County population will be located in the MSAs. The centralization of acute care beds in Orange County, according to Mr. Van Talbert, Winter Park's expert health planner, constitutes irresponsible health planning: "It tends to perpetuate the old patterns of centralization, and I think that is inconsistent with contemporary thought in American society." Mr. Talbert also testified that the MSAs and particularly east Orange County, are greatly underserved based upon the number of hospital beds conveniently available to the people who live there. Even if Mr. Talbert's conclusions are correct and even if there is a "maldistribution" of acute care beds as defined by the Petitioners, this does not mean there is an accessibility problem in the MSAs sufficient to conclude that additional acute care beds are needed in District 7, Orange County or the MSAs. The fact that 22 percent of the population of Orange County may reside in the MSAs by 1990 with only 6 percent of the County's acute care beds is not the test. Even if it is true that "contemporary planning may indicate that centralization of acute care beds is poor planning," the pertinent statutes and rules only require a determination of whether acute care beds are available and accessible. The evidence in these cases clearly indicates that the population of the MSAs can access available acute care hospital beds in District 7. All the Petitioners have shown is that some residents of the MSAs "will be forced to make inconvenient drives to downtown hospitals," as stated in Winter Park's proposed recommended order. Likewise, AMI's proposed finding of fact that ",the realities of the situation reveal that the residents of the MSA and their physicians perceive serious access problems due to excessive travel distance, traffic congestion, the lack of convenience for patients who have to go to hospitals for tests, and the lack of convenience for families and friends having to make several trips a day to see a person in a hospital" does not prove there is an access problem. The perception of patients and physicians as to the inconvenience in accessing acute care beds does not prove there is an access problem sufficient to warrant a new hospital. In conjunction with the Petitioners' position with regard to "maldistribution" of acute care beds, the Petitioners have proposed findings of fact to the effect that previous Department responses to shifts in population growth away from where hospitals are located have been to authorize new hospitals. New hospitals in Altamonte Springs and Longwood in Seminole County, and in southwest Orange County (Sand Lake) have been cited as examples. Although Mr. Talbert's testimony supports these proposed findings of fact to some extent, there is insufficient evidence to conclude why those hospitals were authorized by the Department. If the evidence showed that additional acute care beds were needed in Seminole and Orange Counties when those hospitals were approved it would be consistent with the Department's rules to locate the additional acute care beds where population growth had occurred. In these cases, if there was an established need for an additional acute care hospital in Orange County, the evidence would probably justify placing it in east Orange County. The facts, however, do not indicate any need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Other MSA Considerations. It is not essential to identify a MSA for purposes of considering an application for a new acute care hospital as suggested by AMI. As discussed, infra, the designation of a MSA by an applicant may be helpful for some purposes, but not to determine whether there is a need for a new hospital. AMI has proposed a finding of fact that Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, both of which are located in Orlando, are tertiary care facilities providing services of higher complexity for patients; they therefore attract a substantial number of referral patients in need of more extensive, complex services which are not available from primary care hospitals. The existence of these tertiary facilities has justified the allocation of more acute care beds to Orange and Seminole Counties in the past. Although these facts were proved at the hearing, the overriding fact remains clear that there is no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. AMI attempted to prove through Mr. Mark Richardson an expert in health planning, that there is a need for acute care beds in AMI's MSA based upon the characteristics of the MSA. Mr. Richardson testified that his projections were not based or contingent on the Formula of Section 10-5.11(23), F.A.C., and acknowledged the decline in utilization of acute care hospital beds in Orange County. Mr. Richardson did state that the Department's projection of a net acute care bed need of 89 beds under the Formula supported his projections. The projection of a need for 89 beds was clearly based upon outdated data. Use of current utilization data indicates an excess of 464 acute care beds. Therefore, if application of the Formula resulting in a bed need of 89 beds supports Mr. Richardson's projections, an application of the Formula which results in an excess of 464 acute care beds must indicate that Mr. Richardson's projections are suspect. Mr. Richardson's projections were clearly based primarily on the characteristics of AMI's MSA. Because of the narrow scope of Mr. Richardson's analysis, the trend in Orange County and District 7 as to reduced occupancy rates did not affect his projections. In particular, Mr. Richardson used an 80 percent occupancy rate for all beds except obstetric beds, for which he used a 75 percent rate. These occupancy rates are excessive when compared to the occupancy rates for District 7, and Orange and Seminole Counties. Additionally, Mr. Richardson failed to consider the effect of unopened acute care beds in Orange County on occupancy rates. On average, there are over 1,800 unoccupied acute care beds in District 7 and 1,000 unoccupied beds in Orange County. This does not include 134 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, 76 acute care beds to be opened at Florida Hospital's Altamonte Springs campus or 81 acute care beds to be opened at Holmes Regional Medical Center in Brevard County. When opened, these additional acute care beds will further decrease occupancy rates in Orange County and District 7. Even if Mr. Richardson's projections were totally accurate, such a finding would not be relevant to the question of whether there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. That is the crucial question in these cases. Mr. Richardson and AMI have attempted to justify Mr. Richardson's projections by suggesting that the Department does not consider itself precluded from assessing the need for acute case beds on an area within a subdistrict based upon Mr. Nelson's testimony. Mr. Nelson's testimony clearly does not support the use of a MSA to determine if there is a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. Mr. Nelson, when asked whether an applicant could determine bed need based upon the character of a part of Orange County replied: There's nothing to preclude an Applicant from doing that, from carving out what I would call an Applicant's service area, running their own calculations of bed need, and doing whatever they feel they want to do in that regard. And we're not ,precluded from looking at it, either. But our position is that that has no official basis in determinations of bed need. We do look at those subdistricts but not to determine bed need. We look at them to get a better understanding of an application, because we get a sense, from looking at the unique service areas, what they' re trying to accomplish. That would be number one. Number two, and from having worked on the private side, I know one of the reasons why this is done, this is an attempt to define a market share or market area and a percent of all the considerations of what the existing hospitals that are already in the area have in the way of markets and market shares, and so on. So on the second hand, looking at the subdistricts is very important, from the standpoint of helping us to assess the financial feasibility of these proposals, which is another criterion, of course, altogether, specifically in the longer term. Because, you know, you have to know who is getting patients from where in order to be able to fully understand that. And I think the third way in which these subdistricts, these Applicants -- pardon the expression, subdistricts, that's not what these things are -- the Applicant's medical services areas are useful is in those cases where we may have a need helping us to decide where, within, let's say a subdistrict that need should be met. For example, let's suppose in this case, we were showning a need of sufficient magnitude to approve a hospital. But instead of having two applications within a few miles of each other, we had one for east Orange County, and one in west Orange County, and portions of other counties, each of which had carved out their own service area, then it would be very important for us, in that case, to look at these things very carefully, to consider them to help us determine which location was preferable. But in terms of calculating bed need from the Department's perspective, we don't put any stock in those whatsoever from that perspective. ,Emphasis added. Based upon the above testimony, it is clear that MSAs may be looked at if an applicant uses one in order to provide a better understanding of the applicant's proposal, to assess financial feasibility and, where there is an established need for acute care beds, to decide where in the subdistrict the need is the greatest. MSAs are clearly not relied upon to determine the initial question of whether there is a need for acute care beds. To determine acute care bed need based upon a MSA without considering `the' entire subdistrict of Orange County is not appropriate. The Department, as the statute and rules require, determines need at the district level and allocates the district bed need to the subdistricts. In fact, the Department has ruled that it is improper to divide a district into subdistricts smaller than those designated by a local health council for purposes of determining need as pointed out by Winter Park in its proposed recommended order. Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1091A (1983). For purposes of determining whether there is a need for additional acute care hospital beds in Orange County, Mr. Richardson's testimony is of very little value. STATUTORY CRITERIA. Section 10-5.11(23)(b), F.A.C., provides that a certificate of need may be issued when the criteria, other than bed need, as provided in Section 38l.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), demonstrate need. The Petitioners have attempted to prove that there is an accessibility problem in Orange County which demonstrates acute care bed need under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The facts do not support such a conclusion as discussed, supra. This section of the Recommended Order contains findings of fact with regard to the other criteria contained in Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d) Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Consistency with the State and Local Health Plan: Section 381.494(6(c)1, Florida Statutes. The applications of the Petitioners are only partly consistent with the State Health Plan and the Council's Local Health Plan. The Council's Local Health Plan establishes the following occupancy levels for acute care beds which should be met before new acute care beds are approved: TYPE OF BEDS OCCUPANCY LEVEL Medical - Surgical 80% Obstetrical 75% As already discussed, occupancy levels for acute care beds in District 7, and in Orange and Seminole Counties were below 70 percent in 1984. The declining utilization of acute care beds will continue for the next 2 to 4 years and therefore it does not appear that the occupancy level goals in the Local Health Plan will be met by either applicant. These occupancy level goals are intended to be used as checks on the bed need methodologies. The importance of existing occupancy levels in determining whether to add additional acute care beds to a district is recognized in Section 10-5.11(23)(g), F.A.C. The Petitioners have projected that they will achieve an occupancy rate of 45-50 percent after one year of operation. South Seminole Community Hospital, which was opened in May of 1984 in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida, achieved only a 27 percent occupancy rate after 8 months of operation. In light of the fact that South Seminole Community Hospital is located in Longwood, it is doubtful the Petitioners will achieve their projected occupancy rate. The Petitioners have projected that their proposed hospitals will achieve an 80 percent occupancy rate, which is an optimal occupancy rate. Their projections, based upon the findings of fact as to acute care bed need in Orange County and current occupancy levels, are highly unlikely to be reached. Especially in light of the fact that the average occupancy rate in Orange County was only 60.80 percent in 1984. The proposals are also inconsistent with the Local Health Plan goal that a proposal be consistent with the state's acute care bed need methodology. Based upon an application of the Formula, using current data, District 7 and Orange County will have an excess of acute care beds in 1990. Winter Park's proposal is consistent with several other portions of the Local Health Plan. Winter Park's facility will have an active outpatient program, its beds can be available within 24 hours and it will meet several priorities under the Local Health Plan such as being accredited and licensed, and being willing to serve indigents and other patients without regard to payment source. AMI's proposal also meets some of these goals. The Local Health Plan also contains a provision to the effect that "needed" beds should be approved at existing hospitals unless the addition of a new hospital would substantially improve access by at least 15 minutes for 25,000 or more residents. Winter Park has suggested a finding of fact that this provision has been met. If there was a need for additional acute care beds in Orange County such a finding would be appropriate. There is, however, clearly no need for additional acute care beds in Orange County. This portion of the Local Health Plan therefore does not apply. Finally, the Local Health Plan provides that applicants should be able to document community and provider support for their proposals. Community support for the proposals has been demonstrated. Provider support, however, has not been demonstrated. In fact, there is opposition from some providers to the proposed new hospitals, i.e., Florida Hospital and OGH. The proposals are also partially consistent with the State's health plan. The evidence does not clearly establish, however, that the proposals are totally consistent with the goals of the State health plan. Mr. Talbert did testify that Winter Park's proposal is consistent with the goals of the State health plan. It was not clear, however, whether all of the goals were met. Also, Mr. Talbert's testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in this proceeding in some respects. For example, Mr. Talbert testified that one goal of the State health plan is to provide adequate access to acute care resources. The evidence clearly shows that adequate access is already available in Orange County. To the extent it can be inferred that Mr. Talbert's testimony also applies to AMI's proposal, the same problems exist. The evidence does not support a finding that AMI's proposal is totally consistent with the State health plan. Based upon the foregoing, it does not appear that either proposal is totally consistent with the Local Health Plan or the State health plan. The Availability, Quality of Care, Efficiency, Appropriateness, Accessibility, Extent of Utilization and Adequacy of Like and Existing Health Care Services in the Service District; Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires that the availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing health care services in the service district be considered. The service district for this purpose is District 7. The designation of subdistricts in District 7 is specifically for purposes of allocating district bed need to the subdistricts. The parties, to the extent they addressed this criterion, presented evidence primarily for Orange County only, however. The availability, accessibility and extent of utilization of like and existing acute care hospitals in Orange County has been discussed and findings of fact with regard thereto have been made, supra. To summarize, like and existing services in Orange County are available and accessible and are underutilized. The Petitioners have not shown that like an existing services in District 7 do not provide quality of care or that they are not efficient, appropriate or adequate. Winter Park has argued that like and existing services are not accessible. The evidence does not support such a finding of fact. AMI has argued that there are no like and existing services accessible in the MSAs. That is not the test. The determination to made under Section 381.494(6)(c)2, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), is whether there are like and existing services in the service district. The service district in these cases is all of District 7, not the MSAs. There are currently seven acute care hospitals in Orange County: Florida Hospital, OGH, Orlando Regional Medical Center, Brookwood Hospital, Humana Lucerne, Winter Park Hospital and West Orange Memorial Hospital. Additionally, Orlando Regional Medical Center - Sand Lake is expected to be opened before 1990. These district. The evidence does not support a finding that some or all of these facilities or others in District 7 are not available, providing quality of care, efficient, appropriate, accessible, over utilized or adequate. AMI and OGH spent an inordinate amount of time and effort presenting evidence on the issue of whether OGH is a like and existing service. The evidence supports a finding that OGH is a like and existing service. Even if OGH was not a like and existing service, such a conclusion would only be relevant if it were concluded that like and existing services must exist within the boundaries of the MSAs or that OGH was the only accessible acute care hospital to the residents of the MSAs. As stated, supra, the pertinent area is not the MSA but District 7 and there are clearly other acute care hospitals in District 7 and some of those hospitals are accessible. If Orange County alone is the appropriate service area for purposes of applying this criterion, the evidence clearly proves that the Petitioners do not meet the criterion. The evidence proves that there are available, quality, appropriate, efficient and adequate like and existing health care services in Orange County and District 7. The Ability of the Applicants to Provide Quality of Care; Section 381.494(6)(c)3. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion has been meet. 113.. The Availability and Adequacy of Other Health Care Facilities and Services in the Service District which may Serve as Alternatives: Section 381.494(6)(c)4, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). There are clearly other health care facilities in Orange County providing like and existing services. The evidence does not, however, establish that there are other health care facilities and services in Orange County which are alternatives to a 100 bed acute care hospital. Transferring beds from existing facilities has been suggested as an alternative to the proposed new hospitals. This suggested "alternative" could be achieved as easily by approving a new hospital and closing some existing beds. The cost would be essentially the some. Transferring beds is not an alternative. Use of existing beds which are not being occupied is not a viable alternative either, as suggested by OGH in its proposed findings of fact. Probable Economies and Improvements in Service that may be Derived from Operation of Joint, Cooperative or Shared Health Care Resources; Section 381.494(6)(c)5, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). AMI's proposed facility may eventually share some services with Brookwood Community Hospital in the area of administrative management. Brookwood Community Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Brookwood") is a 157 bed general acute care hospital owned and operated by a limited partnership. The general partner and owner of 82.5 percent of the partnership is Brookwood Medical Center of Orlando, Inc., which in turn is owned by AMI. AMI presented its proposal assuming that there would not be any shared services with Brookwood. Through AMI, UCH, Inc., can receive price discounts for its purchases, typically 15 percent to 20 percent lower than the lowest price available in the market generally. UCH, Inc., will also be able to participate in Brookwood's preferred provider organization agreement. This could result in enhanced utilization of UCH, Inc., which could result in decreased health care costs. Winter Park will share some resources with its new hospital. The resources to be shared include Winter Park's incinerator, CAT Scanner, cardiac catheterization ion laboratory, and certain personnel. Centralized accounting, centralized purchasing and some centralized management would also be employed. Both proposals will have joint, cooperative or shared health care resources which would result in probable economics and improvements in service. The Need in the Service District of the Applicant for Special Equipment and Services not Reasonably and Economically Accessible in Adjoining Areas; Section 381.494(6)(c)6, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Need for Research and Educational Facilities: Section 81.494(6)(c) 7, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. The Availability of Resources; the Effects on Clinical Needs of Health Professional Training Programs in the Service District: Accessibility to Schools for Health Professionals: the Availability of Alternative Uses of Resources: Extent Accessible to All Residents; Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that Section 81.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has been met to the extent it deals with "health and management manpower and personnel only." The other factors to be considered under this criterion were not stipulated to. The first factor to be considered is the availability of resources, including physicians and funds for capital and operating expenditures. The availability of funds will be discussed, infra. As to the availability of physicians, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that physicians are available to staff either of the proposed facilities. AMI proposed a finding of fact that ", unlike WPMH, AMI demonstrated that the major medical specialty areas will be represented by various physicians who will joint the UCH medical staff." AMI did demonstrate that various medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at UCH, Inc. It is also true that Winter Park did not demonstrate that all of the medical specialty physicians would be willing to work at its proposed facility. Despite these facts, several physicians testified that they would use Winter Park's proposed facility if it were approved instead of UCH, Inc., and Mr. Willard Wisler's unrebutted testimony establishes that Winter Park would have no difficulty staffing its proposed hospital. Both Petitioners have established that physician resources are available for project accomplishment and operation. The second and third factors to be considered are the effect the projects will have on clinical needs of health professional training programs in Orange County and, if available in a limited number of facilities, the extent to which services will be available to schools for health professionals in Orange County. The weight of the evidence does not establish that professional training programs are available in a limited number of facilities. In fact the evidence establishes that the University of Central Florida (hereinafter referred to as "UCF"), which is located in east Orange County, has fifty-two affiliation agreements with hospitals and other medical facilities. These affiliation agreements include agreements involving clinical training of radiology technicians at Florida Hospital and, in Brevard County, at Halifax Hospital. Approximately 32 radiology students are currently involved in hospital training programs. AMI presented evidence proving the existence of a proposed "affiliation agreement" between its proposed hospital and UCF. AMI and UCF have in fact entered into an Agreement of Intent. The Agreement of intent essentially provides, in relevant part, that AMI's proposed hospital, if approved, would provide clinical training to UCF radiology technician students. Approximately three to six UCF students per semester would receive training at the new hospital. The program with UCF will clearly have a positive effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" in Orange County. The agreement also provides for certain other benefits to UCF in the form of certain gifts. Those benefits, however, are not relevant in considering whether a certificate of need should be issued to AMI. The portion of Section 381.494(6)(c)8, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), at issue in this proceeding requires only that the effect on "clinical needs of health professional training programs" be considered. AMI's gifts will not meet the "clinical needs" of health professional training programs. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to its gifts to UCF are unnecessary. Florida Hospital and Winter Park have proposed several findings of fact concerning AMI's motive in entering into the agreement with UCF. Those proposed findings are not supported by the evidence and are not relevant. Florida Hospital also has proposed findings of fact concerning whether a tertiary hospital would be a better facility for training, the effect of patient mix on training, the lack of any study by UCF to assess the benefits of the agreement and the fact that AMI's proposed facility will not be a teaching hospital or have full-time teachers. Those proposed findings are unnecessary. The fact is, the clinical training to be provided by AMI's facility will be a benefit to the clinical needs of health professional training programs in District 7. Because of the substantial amount of gifts to be made to UCF, which will be paid for by patients of AMI's facility, the costs of AMI's clinical program will be substantial. Winter Park is currently involved in meeting clinical needs of health professional training programs at a number of educational institutions, including UCF. Winter Park's involvement includes radiology and several other programs. Although no agreements have been entered into, programs to meet such clinical needs will be provided at Winter Park's new facility. Because Winter Park has not committed to make any gifts to educational institutions, the costs of its programs will probably be less than AMI's program. The fourth factor to be considered is the availability of alternative uses of resources for the' provision of other health services. The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that there are not alternative uses of resources. The petitioners failed to present evidence sufficient to conclude that there are not alternative uses for available resources. Finally, the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district is to be considered. Both Petitioners are willing to accept all patients regardless of age, sex, race, color or national origin, and medically underserved groups. The Petitioners have met most, but not all, of the requirements of this criterion. Immediate and Long-Term Financial Feasibility; Section 1.494(6)(c)9. Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). Immediate Financial Feasibility. AMI's proposed facility will be financed by a 50 percent equity contribution from AMI to UCF, Inc., and 50 percent debt financing from AMI at a maximum interest rate of 12 percent amortized over 30 years. AMI has sufficient lines of credit to cover the amount needed for debt financing. AMI also has sufficient cash and unrestricted liquid assets (almost $300,000,000.00 by the end of its 1984 fiscal year) and generates enough capital ($300,000,000.00 to $400,000,000.00 a year) to fund its equity contribution and the debt. AMI also has sufficient funds to provide working capital needs of UCF, Inc. Exactly how Winter Park's proposed facility will be financed is less clear. Both of the Petitioners have suggested that the other has not proved that it has "committed" itself to funding their respective proposals. Although the evidence does raise questions as to whether AMI or Winter Park has finally committed the total funds necessary to complete their proposals, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that both Petitioners are committed to funding their proposals. More importantly, the test is whether the Petitioners have available financing sources. University Community Hospital, et ala v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 5 F.A.L.R. 1346-A, 1360-A (1983). AMI clearly proved that its Executive Committee had approved its proposal. One of its witnesses, however, testified that the approval of capital expenditures of over $1,000,000.00 took approval of the full AMI Board of Directors. Winter Park clearly proved that its Board of Trustees had approved only $4,000,000.00 of the costs of its facility. Despite these facts, the evidence establishes that, although final approval of all the funds necessary to fund the proposals may not have been given, the funds necessary to insure the immediate, financial feasibility of both proposals are available. Where the funds will come from in Winter Park's case and the total amount of funds needed by Winter Park is far from being crystal clear. Winter Park failed to take into account several expenses it will incur, including sewer capacity reserve fees (approximately $160,500.00), telephone lease costs ($20,000.00) and possibly some interest expenses. There may also be an underestimate of the cost of debt financing, depending upon whether tax-exempt loans are available to Winter Park. The costs of sewer capacity reserve and the telephone lease can probably be covered by the contingency funds projected by Winter Park. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to equipment costs underestimates are rejected as unsupported by the weight of all of the evidence. Even with the understatement of project costs, the evidence supports a conclusion that Winter Park's proposal is immediately financial feasible. Winter Park currently has set aside "over $7,000,000.00" which can be applied to fund its proposal. (Although Winter Park has certain planned or ongoing capital improvements, the evidence does not prove that these improvements will be funded out of the funds set aside for the proposed new hospital, as suggested by AMI)'. Winter Park also has lines of credit with Barnett Bank and Sun Bank of $5,000,000.00 each. Neither line of credit has been used in the past. The Sun Bank line of credit was recently renewed and is available for one year. The Barnett Bank line of credit is also good for only one year. Both lines of credit have been renewed in the past. These lines of credit will have to be renewed before construction of Winter Park's facility begins. Winter Park presented no evidence as to whether the lines of credit would be renewed by either bank, however. Therefore, the record does not contain evidence as to whether the lines of credit will be available. Winter Park is also the sole beneficiary of the Winter Park Memorial Hospital Association Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation set upon to receive donations for the support of Winter Park. The Foundation "would make funds available to it [Winter Parka when needed." (Although testimony concerning Winter Park's alleged ability to "request" funds from the Foundation was struck, the quoted testimony was not objected to). The Foundation currently has $2,000,000.00 which could be provided to Winter Park. Finally, Winter Park has a commitment from Barnett Bank for a loan of $9,181,648.00. The loan has been committed whether interest on the loan is tax- free or taxable to Barnett Banks. Whether the loan is tax-free will affect the immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. If the loan is not tax-free, additional interest expense will be incurred; instead of being financed at a 7.696 interest rate, Winter Park will be charged approximately 11.5 percent interest if the loan is not tax- free. If the loan is tax-free, Winter Park may have failed to take into account costs associated with obtaining tax-free financing, i.e., underwriter's fees. AMI has proposed a number of findings of fact concerning additional costs associated with whether the Barnett Bank loan is tax-free. Those findings of fact are not relevant, however, in determining immediate financial `feasibility of Winter Park's proposal. The evidence establishes that the funds available to Winter Park are sufficient to cover Winter Park's projected costs and the costs it failed to include in its proposal (including the $1,20 0,000.00 of working capital which will be needed by the and of 1988). Both proposals are financially feasible in the short-term. Long Term Financial Feasibility. The Petitioners have failed to prove that their proposals are financially feasible in the long run. The projections of the Petitioners with regard to expected gross revenue depends upon whether their utilization projections are correct. Based upon the conclusion that there is no need for the proprosed facilities it is unrealistic to expect the facilities to be financially feasible. AMI's projections as to gross revenue depend on Mr. Richardson's need analysis for AMI's MSA. As discussed, supra, Mr. Richardson's projections were based upon unrealistic occupancy rates. Winter Park's projected utilization is based upon Winter Park's historical experience with its MSA for 1983. Mr. Talbert's and Mr. John Winfrey's reliance on this data in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals in Orange County is misplaced. Determining utilization of Winter Park's proposed hospital in future years based on utilization of an existing hospital in light of the trend toward reduced utilization of hospitals is very suspect. The fact that east Orange County is expected to grow in terms of population does not eliminate the concern with regard to utilization. Orange County has been growing since 1980 and before. Despite that growth, hospital utilization has declined. As to the projected expenses of the proposed hospitals which effect the financial feasibility of the proposals, it appears that AMI's projections are reasonable. A number of questions concerning Winter Park's expenses were raised, however, by the evidence. The evidence supports a finding that Winter Park has failed to take into account some expenses which will affect the long term financial feasibility of its proposal. Expenses not taken into account include phone lease expenses ($15,000.00 to $20,000.00), indigent care assessments ($58,000.00 in the second year of operation) and start-up costs ($22,680.00 a year). The evidence, however, also supports a finding that Winter Park's estimate of medicare contractual allowances was $318,900.00 too high and that depreciation expense was $130,000.00 too high. These overstatements of expenses are more than sufficient to cover the understatements of expenses discussed in this paragraph. The primary problem with Winter Park's estimate of expenses is that Winter Park has projected interest expense at a tax- exempt rate of 7.6 percent. The evidence does not prove that Winter Park can, however, obtain tax-exempt financing. Winter Park only presented evidence that Barnett Bank is willing to loan funds on a tax-exempt or taxable basis. Winter Park must, however, obtain approval of its proposed tax-exempt financing from the Orange County Health Facilities Authority. See Chapter 154, Florida Statutes (1983). No evidence that such approval could be obtained was presented at the hearing. Winter has therefore failed to prove that its estimated interest expenses can be achieved. The evidence also shows that if Winter Park cannot obtain tax-exempt financing, it will have to borrow funds at an 11.5 percent interest rate. This rate of interest can be obtained, but the additional interest expense would result in a net loss for the second year of operation. Based upon the foregoing, Winter Park has failed to prove that its proposal is financially feasible in the long-term. Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that it could charge a higher rate for its services to cover understated expenses. No evidence was presented, however, that proves that Winter Park would be willing or committed to a higher charge for its services. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to expenses for utilities, food and drugs, other operating expenses, incinerator costs and equipment costs are rejected. AMI's proposed findings of fact with regard to the goal of Winter Park to achieve an optimum profit margin of 5 percent to 7 percent are rejected because that goal does not apply to the proposed facility. The projected profit margin of the proposed facility is only seven-tenths of one percent. AMI's proposed findings of fact as to the years projections were made for (two years instead of five), the manner of making those projections (no balance sheet, no cash flow statements and no quarterly breakdowns) and the lack of a feasibility study are not necessary. AMI's remaining proposed findings of facts concerning "soft spots" in Winter Park's projections are also rejected. Special Needs and Circumstances of Health Maintenance Organizations; Section 381.494(6)(c)10, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Needs and Circumstances of Entities which Provide Services or Resources to Individuals not Residing in the Service District or Adjacent Service Districts; Section 381.494(6)(c)11, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The parties have stipulated that this criterion does not apply. Probable Impact of the Proposal on the Costs of Providing Health Services; Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The weight of the evidence clearly supports a conclusion that if either of the proposed hospitals is approved, the probable impact on the costs of providing health services would be negative. The only real question raised by the evidence is the degree of the negative impact. It has already been found that there will be an excess of beds in Orange County in 1990 and that utilization rates are decreasing and will continue to do so. To add 100 acute care beds to an already over-bedded subdistrict can only further add to the number of excessive beds. Patients who would occupy 100 new acute care beds would have access to other hospitals in Orange County if a new hospital is not approved. If it is assumed that patients could be attracted to a new hospital in the MSA's it necessarily follows that those patients will not use an existing, already underutilized, hospital in Orange County, Seminole County or the rest of District 7. Additionally, the evidence clearly shows that some patients who currently use existing Orange and Seminole County hospitals would be attracted to a new hospital in the MSAs. AMI has suggested that such a loss of patients would be "minimal." Minimal or not, the loss of any number of patients would result in a loss of patient days and revenue to existing hospitals which are on average already underutilized. If patients are lost by existing hospitals, the ability to serve indigents could be adversely affected. The projected population growth for the MSA's does not solve the problem either. Orange County has been experiencing population growth during the 1980's, as well as prior to 1980. Despite this population growth, utilization rates have been decreasing. Even Mr. Richardson, AMI's expert health planner, admitted there would be an impact on existing hospitals. Mr. Richardson indicated that there would a "1.5 percent occupancy impact on the system" by 1990 based upon Mr. Margolis' analysis. Mr. Richardson indicated that such an impact would be "minimal." Whether a 1.5 percent impact is minimal is not the issue. The issue is what effect such an impact would have. The weight of the evidence clearly supports the finding that the impact would be negative and the citizens of Orange County would suffer the consequences of that "minimal" impact. Florida Hospital's expert health planner, Mr. Margolis, was the most credible witness with regard to this criterion. His testimony proves that Florida Hospital and OGH could lose 5,400 to 6,000 patient days if a new 100 acute care hospital is approved. How much the dollar loss would be as a result of such a decrease in patient days is not clear. There was testimony that OGH could lose $1,000,000.00 to $3,500,000.00 in gross revenue. AMI has again suggested that the loss in patient days and revenue to OGH would be minimal and that OGH's testimony as to the amount of loss was misleading. Mr. Patrick Deegan, who testified as an expert in finance for OGH, did fail to take into account any reduction in expenses which might be associated with a loss in revenue and also failed to take into account increases in revenue as a result of growth. Although these factors could influence the amount of projected losses in revenue, the fact remains that a new acute care hospital could and probably would have a negative impact on OGH. AMI has also suggested that OGH could and should reduce its staff. This suggestion is based upon a comparison of OGH's staffing patterns and UCH Inc's proposed staffing. The record does not support AMI's proposed findings of fact. The record does not prove that UCH, Inc's, proposed staff will be at a more appropriate staffing level. Nor does the record establish that a reduction in staff at OGH would be detrimental, as suggested by OGH. As to Florida Hospital, AMI also suggests that any impact to its campuses would be minimal, if any. It is true that there probably would be no impact on Florida Hospital's Apopka campus. Florida Hospital's Orlando campus, however, gets 20 percent of its admission from the MSAs and its Altamonte Springs campus gets 3 percent of its admissions from the MSAs, as AMI points out in its proposed findings of fact. If any of those patients utilize a new hospital in the MSAs, Florida Hospital will lose patients and will be adversely affected. AMI suggested several findings of fact with regard to the financial well-being of Florida Hospital, the addition of beds at its Altamonte Springs and Orlando campuses and its motives in intervening in these cases. These proposed facts do not support a finding that Florida Hospital would not be negatively affected by the opening of a new 100 acute care bed hospital in Orange County. Finally, Winter Park has proposed findings of fact to the effect that a new Winter Park hospital in the MSAs will foster competition and thereby lower costs in Orange County for hospital services. The record does not support these proposed findings of fact in light of the excess of beds in District 7 and the underutilization of existing beds. Based upon the foregoing, Section 381.494(6)(c)12, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), has not been met by the Petitioners' proposals. Costs and Methods of Construction; Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). The Petitioners only partially proved that Section 381.494(6)(c)13, Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), will be met. This section requires proof as to the costs and methods of construction, including methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly or more effective methods of construction. The Petitioners only proved that the costs of construction would be reasonable. AMI's proposed facility will have 99,000 square feet. The total cost of construction will be $10,095,000.00 including $650,000.00 for site preparation, $8,161,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $406,000.00 for contingencies and $878,000.00 for inflation. Architectural and engineering fees will cost an additional $566,700.00. AMI's costs of construction do not include the $236,800.00 cost of reserving sewage capacity or the costs of obtaining appropriate rezoning of its property. These costs will add to the total cost of construction and the total cost of the proposal. AMI's contingency funds are sufficient to cover these amounts. AMI's additional findings of fact concerning construction costs are cumulative or unnecessary for purposes of determining if this criterion has been met. Winter Parks's proposed facility will have 98,763 square feet. Total cost of construction projected by Winter Park is $10,415,000.00, consisting of $375,000.00 for site preparation, $9,000,000.00 for labor, materials, overhead and profit, $468,700.00 for contingencies and $552,200.00 for inflation. Winter Park's projections do not include the costs of reserving sewage capacity which will add approximately $150,000.00 in costs. This additional amount can be covered by the contingency amount. Although the evidence was contradictory, Winter Park did not inadvertently leave out the cost of an incinerator--there will be no incinerator at the new hospital. Although the Petitioners presented testimony to the effect that their projected costs of construction are reasonable, no consideration was given to whether the proposed facilities would be developments of regional impact (hereinafter referred to as "DRI") under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (1983), and the costs associated with such a determination. The evidence supports conclusion that there will be some costs associated with the determination of whether the proposals are DRIs. The additional cost, however, does not appear to be significant. The Petitioners have failed to prove that the methods of construction are reasonable. They have also failed to prove that the provision of energy will be reasonable or that there are not alternative, less costly, or more efficient methods of construction available. Section 381.494(6)(d). Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.). In addition to considering the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), Section 381.494(6)(d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), requires findings of fact in cases of capital expenditure proposals for new health services to inpatients as follows: That less costly, more efficient, or more appropriate alternatives to such inpatient services are not available and the development of such alternatives has been studied and found not practicable. The existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. In the case of new construction, that alternatives to new construction, for example, modernization or sharing arrangements, have been considered and have been implemented to the maximum extent practicable. That patients will experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. In the case of a proposal for the addition of beds for the provision of skilled nursing or intermediate care services, that the addition will be consistent with the plans of other agencies of the state responsible for the provision and financing of long-term care, including home health services. The facts concerning the first three items quoted are favorable to the Petitioners. The last one does not apply. The fourth item has not been proved to be true in this case. Summary. In summary, the evidence proves that an application of the criteria of Section 381.494(6)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes (1984 Suppl.), does not demonstrate the need for either of the proposed facilities. The Petitioners have only proved that they can provide quality of care, that there are not alternatives to their proposals, that they will have shared resources, that personnel are available, that they have the capital to create the facilities, that they will improve the clinical needs of health professional training programs, and that their proposals are `financially feasible in the short-run. The Petitioners, however, have failed to prove any need for the facilities. Their proposals are not consistent with the local health plan or the State health plan. There are sufficient, underutilized existing hospitals to meet any need for hospital care and they will be adversely affected by the proposed facilities. The proposed facilities are not financially feasible in the long run. THE NEED FOR A CAT SCANNER AMI is also seeking a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner in this proceeding. The determination of whether such a certificate of need should be issued is governed by Section 10-5.11(13), F.A.C. In order to qualify for CAT Scanner, AMI must first obtain approval of its proposed hospital. Because it has been concluded that a certificate of need for a new hospital should not be granted, AMI should not be granted a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner; it will not qualify under Section 10- 5.11(13), F.A.C. In an abundance of caution, the following findings of fact are made as to whether a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should be issued if AMI's application for a certificate of need for an acute care hospital is approved by the Department. Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C., provides that a favorable determination will not be given to applicants failing to meet the standards and criteria of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)1-10, F.A.C. The evidence clearly establishes that AMI's CAT Scanner application meets the standards of Sections 10- 5.11(13)(b) 1-3 and 7-9, F.A.C. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)4, F.A.C., does not apply. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)5, F.A.C., requires that an applicant document that there is a need for at least 1,800 scans to be accomplished in the first year of operation and at least 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Mr. Richardson testified that this standard is intended to apply to existing providers and that for a new hospital the need should apply to a five year horizon (1990 in this case). Mr. Richardson indicated that in 1990, this standard can be met. The language of Section 10-5.11(13(b)5, is clear; there must be a need documented for the first year of operation and each year thereafter. In this case, the first year of operation will be 1987. AMI has not documented that there is a need for 1800 scans in 1987 or 2,400 scans per year thereafter. Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C., requires that the applicant document that the number of scans per existing scanner exceeded 2,400 during the "preceding 12 months." The evidence establishes that during the 12 months preceding the hearing all of the fixed CAT Scanners located at hospitals except two were being used for more than 2,400 scans. Again, Mr. Richardson indicated that this standard should be applied to the 12 months preceding 1990. That is not what the rule specifies. The standard applies to the 12 months preceding the hearing. The two units that have not been used for 2,400 scans just started operation, however. Because the rule requires that in the first year of operation only 1,800 scans need to be performed, those units should not be considered in determining if AMI meets this standard. Therefore, AMI meets the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b)6, F.A.C. The last standard, Section 10-5.11(13)(b)10, F.A.C., provides that extenuating circumstances pertaining to health care quality or access problems, improved cost benefit consideration or research needs may be considered. The facts do not support a finding that there are extenuating circumstances in this case. The facts do prove that any hospital such as the AMI proposed hospital should have access to a CAT Scanner. This need, however, can be met by a mobile CAT Scanner or by transferring patients to a facility with a CAT Scanner, although the latter alternative is less desirable. The evidence clearly proves that there is not access problem with regard to obtaining the services of a CAT Scanner. AMI has not met the requirements of Section 10-5.11(13)(b), F.A.C. Taking into account the factors to be considered under Section 10-5.11(13)(a)1- 8, F.A.C., also supports a finding that a certificate of need for a CAT Scanner should not be issued to AMI even if there is a need for its proposed hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the certificate of need applications for a 100-bed acute care hospital and CAT Scanner filed by AMI, case number 84-1819, be denied. It is further DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Baggett, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire ROBERTS, BAGGETT, LaFACE & RICHARD 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Von Eckhardt, Esquire American Medical International, Inc. 414 Camden Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 Kenneth F. Hoffman, Esquire OERTEL & HOFFMAN, P.A. Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. P. "Rusty" Carolan, III, Esquire WINDERWEEDLE, HAINES, WARD & WOODMAN, P.A. P.O. Box 880 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0880 Harden King, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 E. G. "Dan" Boone, Esquire Stephen K. Boone, Esquire E.G. BOONE, P.A. P.O. Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Brain D. Stokes, Esquire MATEER & HARBERT, P.A. 100 East Robinson Street P.O. Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 LIST OF WITNESSES AMI NAME EXPERTISE Jim Palmer Phillip L. Coppage Hospital administration including staffing. Thomas C. Wohlford Patient group and insurance programs in the health care industry. J.D. Garland Health care facilities, including hospital construction management and budgeting and cost estimating. Manuel Viamonte, M.D. Radiology. Dick Chadbourne Manpower staffing requirements for health care facilities. Jan Stirrat Health care facility equipment planning and equipment cost budgeting. Preston Thompson Physician relations and recruiting. Joseph Akerman, M.D. Peter Hiribarnc, M.D. Louis Trefonas, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of sponsored research projects at UCF. Thomas S. Mendenhall, Ph.D. Need, development and operation of health education and affiliation programs. Alan Denner, M.D. Louis C. Murray, M.D. Joseph Sandberg, M.D. Myles Douglas, M.D. Robert D. Fennell Corporate health facilities planning, processing, implementation and development. Manuel J. Coto, M.D. Jerold J. Faden, M.D. Zivko Z. Gajk, M.D. Don Steigman Hospital operations and administration. William A. Tipton Traffic and transportation. Neal B. Hiler Civil engineering and property site analysis. Trevor Colbourn Ben E. Whisenant Frederick A. Raffa, Ph.D. Demographics and socioeconomic forecasting. Nilo Regis, M.D. Richard Pajot Mark Richardson Health planning. Richard Altman Hospital management engineering. Walter Wozniak Armond Balsano Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis and third- party reimbursements. Rick Knapp Health care facility financial feasibility and analysis, third- party reimbursement and rate-setting for health care facilities. Richard Anderson Edward E. Weller Real estate appraisal. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Van Talbert Health care planning. Margo Kelly Financial management, analysis and feasibility. WINTER PARK NAME EXPERTISE Katherine J. Brown Florida Hospital Cost Containment Board procedures; hospital costs and charges, data gathering and review; and hospital costs and charges comparisons. Karl Schramm, Ph.D. Hospital cost and charges and comparisons thereof and health care financing, including the impact upon the health care consumer. Willard Wisler Hospital administration including staffing and operating hospitals. John H. Roger Construction design and costs, including site preparation, and analysis thereof, in central Florida; including health care facilities construction. R. Sans Lassiter Traffic engineering, travel times and access in central Florida. Richard Anderson Sarah Mobley Equipment and cost of equipment. William J. Serow, Ph.D. Demographics. Van Talbert Health care planning. John Winfrey Health care accounting and financial feasibility analysis. Robert C. Liden Investment banking, including tax-exempt financing of health care facilities. Lewis A. Siefert Hospital accounting and Medicare Reimbursement. FLORIDA HOSPITAL NAME EXPERTISE Steven Windham Health planning. W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. Ronald J. Skantz Radiology training and management. Sven Kansman Traffic engineering and travel time studies. John Crissey Stan Smith, Ph.D. Demographics. Gabriel Mayer, M.D. Physician. Larry Margolis Health care planning, hospital administration, facility planning, HMO's and PPO's. Scott Allen Miller Health care accounting and financial feasibility. OGH NAME EXPERTISE Patrick J. Carson, D.O. Medical emergencies and operation of an emergency room. Tracey Watson Michael Sherry B. Jean Martell Walter J. Wozniak Lawrence Kramer, O.D. Family practice. Patrick Deegan Accounting, hospital finance and budgeting. Andrea Walsh DEPARTMENT NAME EXPERTISE W. Eugene Nelson Health planning, CON administration and transportation planning. PUBLIC WITNESSES Mike Baumann Bob Mandell Luddy Goetz Martin Goodman Yvonne Opfell Martin Lebnick
Findings Of Fact Introduction Orlando General Hospital applied in April, 1987, for a certificate of need to allow it to convert 24 existing medical-surgical beds to short term psychiatric beds. O.G. Ex. 2, p. 1. It did not explicitly apply for beds limited to serve adults. It did, however, state that adolescent care would not be provided "at this time," leaving open the use of the 24 beds in the future for possible adolescent use. Id. at p. 5. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., applied for a certificate of need for a 50 bed short term psychiatric specialty hospital. It explicitly applied for a specialty hospital having 50 beds of "short term adult psychiatric care." C.M. Ex. 1, application, section I. In the executive summary, it characterized its proposal as a specialty hospital "for adults." Id. at p. 1. Charter does not intend to treat child or adolescent short term psychiatric patients. T. 23. The applications were filed in early 1987 to meet need in the January, 1992, planning horizon. The rule that applies in this case is the one contained in the prehearing stipulation. T. 392. It is rule 10-5.011(1)(o), Fla. Admin. Code. A copy of the rule is contained in O.G. Ex. 7, p. 33. The provisions of the local health plan at issue in this case are accurately reproduced in the State Agency Action Report (SAAR) which is C.M. Ex. 5. Net Short Term Psychiatric Bed Need (Numeric Need) Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4a-c, Fla. Admin. Code, provides that the projected number of beds shall be based on a bed need ratio of .35 beds per 1,000 population projected five years into the future and based, in this case, on the January, 1987, projections for January, 1992. That 1992 population for District VII is projected to be 1,505,564, and thus the gross short term psychiatric bed need is 527 beds. For this batching cycle, the inventory of licensed and approved short term psychiatric beds was 410. These were: General Hospitals Florida Hospital-Altamonte 20 Florida Hospital-Orlando 85 Orlando Regional Med. Center 32 Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital 25 Subtotal 162 Specialty Hospitals Brevard Mental Health Center 52 CPC Palm Bay (began 10/86) 40 Laurel Oaks (began 10/86) 60 Lynnhaven (approved only) 39 Park Place (approved only) 17 West Lake 40 Subtotal 248 TOTAL (Licensed and approved) 410 TOTAL (Licensed only) 354 Thus, there is a net need for 117 short term psychiatric beds In District VII by 1992. The rule further specifies that a minimum of .15 per 1,000 population should be allocated to hospitals holding a general license, and that .20 per 1,000 of the beds may be located in either speciality hospitals or hospitals holding a general license. HRS interprets the word "should" in the rule with respect to .15 per 1,000 allocated to hospitals with a general license as being mandatory. C.M. Ex. 5, pp. 13-14. This is a reasonable construction of the rule. By 1992 there must be 226 short term psychiatric beds located in hospitals holding a general license. Since currently there are 162 beds in such hospitals, there is a net need by January, 1992, for 64 short term psychiatric beds to be opened in hospitals holding a general license. The remainder of the net bed need, 53 beds, may be located in either a specialty hospital or a hospital holding a general license. T. 500-02. The Occupancy Rate for "All Existing Adult Short Term Inpatient Psychiatric Beds" Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4e, Fla. Admin. Code, provides in part that "no additional short term inpatient hospital adult psychiatric beds shall normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing adult short term inpatient psychiatric beds in a service district is at or exceeds 75 percent for the preceding 12 month period." (E.S.). Calendar year 1986 is the period of time accepted by all parties as the "preceding 12 month period" as specified by the rule, that is, the period of time to calculate the occupancy rate for this batching cycle. See, e.g., T. 285; C.M. Ex. 5. The State Agency Action Report Occupancy Rate The State Agency Action Report computed the occupancy rate for all licensed short term psychiatric beds in District VII in calendar year 1986 at 70.13 percent. C.M. Ex. 5, p. 10. This figure was based upon data as to patient days as reported by District hospitals to the District VII local health council and was based upon 354 licensed beds in the District during the full calendar year, but excluded 56 beds the re approved but not opened. O.G. Ex. 7, p. 6. Exclusion of CPC Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks CPC Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks have been designated by certificate of need issued by HRS to serve only children and adolescents. T. 507. Since those facilities by law cannot serve adults, their beds are not "adult beds," their patient days are not adult patient days, and their occupancy rate is not an adult occupancy rate. T. 1128. If CPC Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks were excluded from the calculation of the occupancy rate in the SAAR, the occupancy rate would be 73.7 percent. This rate is a weighted average based upon a 86,779 patient days that were possible at 100 percent occupancy of all licensed short term psychiatric beds in District VII in 1986, excluding Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks. C.M. Ex. 17, p. 11, fn. 9. How Many Adult Patient Days and Beds? HRS often issues certificates of need without age restrictions, allowing the facility to provide short term psychiatric treatment to everyone, regardless of age. Such hospitals can and do serve all ages, and their licensed short term psychiatric beds are not designated as, or restricted to, adults. T. 1128-29. With the exception of Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks, none of the other licensed short term psychiatric hospitals in the District are restricted by HRS by patient age. HRS does not have data to enable it to determine which short term psychiatric beds were used by adult patients in the District in 1986. T. 1169. Use of beds for age cohorts can dramatically and continuously change during a calendar year, and 41 has no reliable means to know about such changes. T. 1229-30. Hospitals issued certificates of need without limitation as to the age of the patient are not required by HRS to report the number of patient days served by the hospital by age or age group of the patient. See T. 1218-19; HRS Ex. 2. HRS Ex. 2. Consequently, the reported short term psychiatric patient days for District VII for calendar year 1986 mix adult patient days with patient days for children and adolescents. Thus, with the exception of Laurel Oaks and Palm Bay, it is impossible in this case for the applicants and other parties in this batching cycle to untangle pure adult psychiatric patient days from the available data. T. 392, 353, 287, 291, 371, 1169-71. It is impossible on this record to make a finding of fact as to what would happen to the mixed occupancy rate all patient days attributable to adolescents and children could be excluded from the adult patient days. The only bit of evidence is found in C.M. Ex. 17, the data from Florida Hospital, which shows for that hospital that the 16 adolescent unit in 1986 had an occupancy rate of 60.92 percent, and the open adult unit had an occupancy rate of 82.42 percent. C.M. Ex. 17, p. 3. But that percentage is more a reflection of Florida Hospital's choice in how it set up the beds in the two programs than it is a reflection of need. For example, had Florida Hospital chosen to allocate only 12 beds to its adolescent program, instead of 16, the 1986 occupancy rate for that unit, based on 3,558 patients a day, would have been 81.23 percent. One wonders why Florida Hospital did not simply allocate a lower number of beds to the adolescent unit, since it had only 13 admissions to that unit in 1986. In any event, since a hospital like Florida Hospital has discretion as to how it sets up its beds with respect to the ages of patients. In those beds, the fact that it had an occupancy rate of 60.92 percent in the subunit it called the adolescent unit in 1986 is relatively meaningless when trying to predict which way a pure adult occupancy rate might change if adolescent and child patient days could be excluded. In summary, there is no accurate count of beds licensed only as adult beds, there is no accurate count of beds used only as adult beds, and there is no accurate count of adult patient days. The Problem of West Lake Hospital The record has an additional data problem with respect to calculation of the occupancy rate of adult short term psychiatric beds. West Lake Hospital is licensed for 40 short term beds (not restricted by age), and 30 long term psychiatric beds. Data for calendar year 1986, the only year relevant in this case, is a mixture of short term and long term patient days. C.M. Ex. 17. As will be discussed ahead, additional evidence as to the patient days at West Lake Hospital was excluded from evidence for failure to comply with the prehearing order. The Problem of Short Term Psychiatric Patient Days Occurring in General Hospitals Without Licensed Short Term Psychiatric Beds A general hospital with no licensed short term psychiatric care can lawfully provide temporary and sporadic short term psychiatric care in its medical-surgical beds. T. 1191. In calendar year 1986, Orlando General Hospital reported to the Hospital Cost Containment Board that it provided 4,969 psychiatric (MDC 19) patient days of care. O.G. Ex. 7, p. 11. By 1988, it had over 30 psychiatric patients in the hospital at any given time. T. 753. Orlando General Hospital does not have any beds licensed for short term psychiatric care, or for long term psychiatric care, for that matter. Orlando General Hospital's psychiatric patients are currently receiving inpatient psychiatric care that is substantially the same as would be provided in a licensed short term psychiatric bed, with the exception that the care is osteopathic in nature. See T. 797, 1355-58, 1360-62, 788-90, 792-93. HRS Policy as to the Data Problems HRS stated that it "... would not attempt to fix a specific occupancy for a specific age cohort" in this case, T. 1220. A good faith attempt was made, however. Following a new policy, HRS argued that the adult bed occupancy rate should exclude the beds and patient days of hospitals having certificates of need explicitly limited to service of the needs of children and adolescents (Palm Bay and Laurel Oaks), but should include all of the licensed short term psychiatric beds at any other facility that is not restricted by patient age. T. 1127-29. It was acknowledged that the information is faulty, but the Department urges that it is the best that it can do under the circumstances. T. 1174. With respect to patient days, HRS also urges that only the patient days reported to the local health council by hospitals having licensed adult short term psychiatric beds should be counted in the mixed rate. In particular, HRS argues that it should not use patient day data reported to the Hospital Cost Containment Board because such data is not limited to hospitals having "designated" psychiatric units. T. 1126-27. This argument is not reasonable. Hospitals that are legally authorized to provide short term psychiatric care to adults (i.e., having a certificate of need and a license) can provide such care in any licensed bed in the hospital, even though the bed is not licensed as a psychiatric bed. Moreover, a general hospital with no licensed short term psychiatric care, according to HRS witnesses, can lawfully provide temporary and sporadic short term psychiatric care in its medical-surgical beds. It may even provide such care on a continuous, ongoing basis, as in the case of Orlando General Hospital, although the legality of doing so is questioned by HRS. The critical question is not whether these licensed hospitals have legal authority to provide short term psychiatric care, but whether the care in fact given results in a short term psychiatric patient day in the District. If the care given is essentially the same as if the patient had been in a licensed short term psychiatric bed, it would be unreasonable not to treat the resulting statistic as a short term psychiatric patient day. What is at stake is a true measurement of District capacity. If tomorrow all of the District short term psychiatric patients and the patient days generated by such patients transferred to the District licensed short term psychiatric beds, these short term psychiatric patient days would certainly be counted in the occupancy rate. When trying to assess the real extent of availability of District capacity, a false picture of excess and unused capacity would be shown if real short term psychiatric patient days are occurring somewhere in the District, but are not counted in determining the occupancy rate. On the other hand, if the facility is not even a licensed hospital, it is presumptively providing an alternative kind of inpatient psychiatric care that is different from a licensed psychiatric hospital. Thus, its patient days are irrelevant absent some specific proof that the care given in such a bed is essentially the same as a short term psychiatric patient day in a licensed general or specialty hospital. What is an "Existing" Adult Short Term Bed? Rule 10-5.011(1)(o)4e, Fla. Admin. Code, calls for the occupancy rate for "all existing" adult short term psychiatric beds in the service district, and does not define the word "existing." Petitioners assert that "existing" adult beds of the facility for purposes of determining occupancy rate is the number of beds characterized by the facility as having been in fact used for psychiatric care during the year, but only if that number is less than the number of licensed short term psychiatric beds. T. 391, 354-55. The Respondent and the Intervenor argue that "existing" adult beds is fixed by the number of licensed short term psychiatric beds granted to the facility by the state if available to serve adult patients. Normally, to be licensed a bed must be available within 24 hours. T. 1121. Orlando Regional Medical Center In calendar year 1986, Orlando Regional Medical Center had 32 licensed short term psychiatric beds. T. 348. These 32 beds were not restricted by patient age. In calendar year 1986, Orlando Regional Medical Center characterized as "in service" 32 beds for the first 7 months of 1986, 22 beds for the month of August, 18 beds for the month of September, and 12 beds for the remaining 3 months of the year. The figure of 25 beds used by the Petitioners is the weighted average. T. 348. These licensed short term psychiatric beds at Orlando Regional Medical Center were temporarily not in service because of the construction of new facilities at the hospital. Orlando Regional Medical Facility intended to reopen those beds in the future because the hospital reminded the party seeking discovery that it had 32 licensed beds, and characterized the missing beds as having been "warehoused," that is, saved for future use. T. 509-10; O.G. Ex. 7, appendix 3. Thus, all 32 of Orlando Regional Medical Center's licensed beds would be available and would be used for adult short term psychiatric care if demand existed. Florida Hospital Florida Hospital has two facilities relevant to this case, one in Orlando, in Orange County, and one in Altamonte Springs, in Seminole County. In calendar year 1986, Florida Hospital had 105 beds licensed as short term psychiatric beds. Florida Hospital would serve patients of any age in these 105 beds. C.M. Ex. 18 is a document which was obtained from Florida Hospital through discovery. T. 286. The document is entitled "Florida Hospital Center for Psychiatry Monthly Operating Statistics," and thus was assumed by Charter's expert to be Florida Hospital's characterization of its data as psychiatric data. T. 289. C.M. Ex. 18 could not have been obtained by Charter at the time it made application. It was obtainable only through the discovery process after commencement of section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., proceedings. T. 314-16, 386-87. Florida Hospital reported in discovery that in calendar year 1986, it had 113 beds operating in its "Center for Psychiatry." Of these, 16 were substance abuse beds, 13 were beds in an eating disorders unit, and 16 were adolescent beds. That left 24 beds in the intensive care unit, 24 beds in an open unit, and 20 beds at a unit at Altamonte Springs. C.M. Ex. 18. The 16 substance abuse beds clearly were not psychiatric beds. If the 13 eating disorders beds were short term psychiatric beds, Florida Hospital had 97 of its 105 licensed short term psychiatric beds in actual operation in 1986. If they were not, Florida Hospital had 84 of its 105 licensed short term psychiatric beds in actual operation in 1986. There is no evidence in this record that Florida Hospital could not and would not have readily opened 8 more short term psychiatric beds during 1986 if demand for those beds had existed, thus having "open" all 105 of its licensed beds. There is no evidence in this record that in 1986, Florida Hospital could not have closed its 16 bed adolescent unit and devoted all of those beds to adult short term psychiatric care, had there been a need. Indeed, it appears that generally speaking, that is how Florida Hospital operates: by shifting beds to other uses within its licensed authority according to demand. See T. 1322-26. Thus, all 105 of Florida Hospital's licensed beds would have been available and would have been used for adult short term psychiatric patients if the demand existed. Counting Patient Days - Are Eating Disorder Patient Days Psychiatric Patient Days? Florida Hospital reported in discovery that it had 2,982 patient days in its eating disorder unit, and that the unit operated with 13 beds. C.M. Ex. 18, P. 3, lines 8 and 26. The eating disorder unit reports to the administrative director of the Florida Hospital Center for Psychiatry. T. 977. The administrative director could not explain why the unit reported to the Center for Psychiatry. T. 977. The unit has co-directors, one a psychiatrist, and the other a specialist in internal medicine. Id. The administrative director of the Center for Psychiatry characterizes the 13 eating disorders beds as medical-surgical beds, and classifies patients in those beds as primarily having a medical problem, T. 976, but the psychiatrist co-director of the program hedged, and would not say whether the primary diagnosis is medical or psychiatric. T. 1315. The patients typically are, however, very ill from a medical point of view. T. 1314. Florida Hospital's characterization of the nature of the care given in its eating disorders unit, as summarized in the preceding paragraph, in view of the manner in which the witnesses were unclear as to how to characterize the eating disorder unit, is not evidence that the care given in that unit is not psychiatric care in view of Florida Hospital's interest in these cases in opposition to the applications. Charter's expert concluded from C.M. Ex. 18 that Florida Hospital was serving short term psychiatric patients in its eating disorders unit at Altamonte Springs. T. 287. He characterized this as a short term psychiatric service in medical-surgical beds. T. 289. But he also characterized the 13 beds as psychiatric beds. T. 287-88. HRS has issued a certificate of need to a short term psychiatric hospital limiting that certificate of need to treatment of eating disorders, thereby recognizing treatment of eating disorders in that case as a form of psychiatric treatment. T. 1191. From testimony at the hearing, it would appear that HRS's expert would view the eating disorder unit at Altamonte Springs as a short term psychiatric program. T. 1191-1192, 1194. It is concluded that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the care rendered to patients in the eating disorders unit was psychiatric care. The unit is administratively a part of the hospital's Center for Psychiatry. While the patients are very ill, medically speaking, they also have substantial mental health problems. Finally, and most persuasive, HRS has previously characterized such care as short term psychiatric care. If these 2,982 eating disorder patient days are counted as psychiatric patient days in 1986 for District VII, and if the number of beds at Florida Hospital remains as it was in the SAAR calculation (105 licensed beds), then the total patient days for the District changes from 63,976 to 66,958. The result is that the occupancy rate for District VII for 1986 for adult and mixed short term psychiatric beds changes from 73.72 percent to 77.16 percent. C.M. Ex. 17, p. 13. This calculation is the result of a weighted average discussed above. Psychiatric Patient Days Reported to the Hospital Cost Containment Board Orlando Regional Medical Center and Florida Hospital report patient days by Medicare major diagnostic categories (MDC). MDC 19 is the category for psychiatric care. T. 512; O.G. Ex. 7. The data collected in this record was for calendar year 1986. T. 603-604. Relying upon MDC 19 statistics for calendar year 1986, Florida Hospital (Orlando and Altamonte Springs combined) had 28,372 MDC 19 patient days, and Orlando Regional Medical Center had 7,328 MDC 19 patient days. The Florida Hospital MDC 19 patient days shown in table 6, O.G. Ex. 7, are very close to the number of patient days shown on C.M. Ex. 18, the operating statistics from the "Center for Psychiatry" obtained from Florida Hospital in discovery. The MDC 19 patient days, 28,372, exceed the "Center for Psychiatry" reported data by only 452. The Orlando Regional Medical Center's MDO 19 patient days, 7,328, is 618 patient days greater than the patient days reported by Orlando Regional Medical Center to the local health council. If these MDC 19 patient days are assumed to be short term adult psychiatric patient days, following the same mathematical calculation used by HRS both in the SAAR and in testimony during the hearing (with the same weighted averages), the occupancy rate for adult and mixed short term psychiatric care in District VII, using licensed beds, was 78.39 percent in calendar year 1986. O.G. Ex. 7, table 6. This calculation uses the same weighted average (86,779 patient days at 100 percent occupancy) as used by all the other parties. C.M. Ex. 17, p. 11, fn. 9. There is no evidence in the record that the foregoing MDC 19 patient days are limited to short term psychiatric days, or the extent to which the data considers long term patient days as well. Of course, there is also no evidence available to separate the MDC 19 patient days into adult patient days and patient days attributable to children and adolescents. Westlake Hospital Data as to Short Term Psychiatric Patient Days in 1986 The Intervenor, Florida Hospital, has renewed its effort to have F.H. Ex. 3, and testimony based upon that exhibit admitted, into evidence. The exhibit and testimony involves data as to short term psychiatric patient days for 1986 at Westlake Hospital, located in Seminole County. Florida Hospital argues that the ruling excluding F.H. Ex. 3 from evidence, as well as testimony related to that exhibit, is inconsistent with the ruling that allowed Charter Medical to introduce C.M. Ex. 19. It is argued that the only difference is that in the case of Charter Medical, the witness first testified as to the contents of the exhibit, whereas in Florida Hospital's case, the exhibit was admitted, the witness testified, and then the exhibit was excluded. Florida Hospital argues that as a result of this sequence of events, its witness was not afforded an opportunity to present the same evidence from memory without the exhibit. From a review of the sequence of events, it is apparent that there is a substantial difference between the two exhibits, as well as a substantial difference in the procedures used by counsel, and that difference necessitates the two rulings. C.M. Ex. 19 is nearly identical to C.M. Ex. 17, with three exceptions. In C.M. Ex. 19 the patient days at the Florida Hospital eating disorder unit were moved from the Orlando facility to the Altamonte Springs facility. C.M. Ex. 19 also excluded adolescent patient days from the Florida Hospital count changed the number of "existing" beds at Orlando Regional Medical Center to 25 instead of 32. T. 295. C.M. Ex. 19 made no other changes to C.M. Ex. 17 with respect to patient days or number of beds. Two objections were made by Florida Hospital to the admission of C.M. Ex. 19, that C.M. Ex. 19 had not been provided to opposing counsel at the exchange of exhibits, in violation of the prehearing order, and that C.M. Ex. 19 was an impermissible amendment to Charter Medical's application for certificate of need. T. 295-296. Only the first objection is the subject of Florida Hospital's renewed argument. The Hearing Officer at the time overruled the first objection because it was determined that C.M. Ex. 19 merely summarized the testimony of Dr. Luke as to changes he would make to C.M. Ex. 17. That ruling was correct, and should not be changed at this time. All of the underlying data for the expert analysis in C.M. Ex. 19 came into evidence without objection that it had not been exchanged among the parties. C.M. Ex. 18 contained the data as to adolescent patient days and eating disorder patient days at Florida Hospital in 196. That data came into evidence without objection that it had not been exchanged. T. 316. Dr. Luke's testimony that Orlando Regional Medical Center had only 25 beds operational in 1986 came into evidence without objection. T. 292. Dr. Luke's testimony concerning the location of the eating disorders unit at Altamonte Springs came into evidence without objection. T. 287, 291. Both of these latter evidentiary matters were of a type that easily could have been known to Dr. Luke without reference to a document to refresh his memory. Additionally, the parties were well aware of the argument that Orlando Regional Medical Center had only 25 operational beds in 1986, and that Florida Hospital had only 48 adult beds in operation in 1986, since that evidence and argument was a fundamental part of Orlando General Hospital's basic bed need exhibit, O.G. Ex. 7, and the testimony of Ms. Horowitz. Moreover, the type of analysis of the data contained in C.M. Ex. 19 is the same as that of Ms. Horowitz in O.G. Ex. 7. Thus, Florida Hospital was not caught by surprise by C.M. Ex. 19. The exhibit did not contain new data or new modes of analysis. Florida Hospital's attempt to introduce data as to the actual number of short term psychiatric patient days at Westlake Hospital in 1986 was quite different. The data as to patient days at Westlake had not been produced during the deposition of Florida Hospital's witness, although similar data for 1987 and 1988 was produced. T. 867. Had it been made available in discovery, the failure to exchange the data as an exhibit as required by the prehearing order would have been less serious. But the exhibit had not been given by Florida Hospital to opposing parties, in violation of the prehearing order. T. 869. F.H. Ex. 3 did not reorganize data that otherwise was exchanged between the parties. It attempted to introduce new raw statistical data that had not been furnished opposing counsel as required by the prehearing order. The Hearing Officer initially ruled that F.H. Ex. 3 should be admitted into evidence and allowed the witness to testify concerning the data contained in the document. T. 870-871. That initial ruling was in error. The data contained in F.H. Ex. 3 is not at all simple. The document consists of four pages of numbers representing monthly statistics in 1986 at Westlake Hospital for each of its units. It is highly unlikely that a witness could have remembered all of that data presented the data in testimony without reliance upon the exhibit. Indeed, the witness testified that all of his testimony was based upon F.H. Ex. 3. T. 907. The witness had apparently given a different impression as to Westlake's occupancy rate in 1986 during his deposition, and did so without the benefit of F.H. Ex. 3. T. 910. Florida Hospital could have asked the witness if he could have presented his testimony without reference to F.H. Ex. 3, but it did not ask the witness that critical question. In sum, the witness could not have presented his analysis from memory. He had to have F.H. Ex. 3 in front of him as he testified. On December 2, 1987, an order was entered setting this case for formal administrative hearing beginning on July 11, 1988. That order established prehearing procedures. Paragraph 3 of that order requires counsel to meet no later than 10 days before the hearing to, among other things, "examine and number all exhibits and documents proposed to be introduced into evidence at the hearing." Later in the same paragraph is the requirement that the parties file a prehearing stipulation containing a list of all exhibits to be offered at the hearing. Paragraph 3D of the prehearing order states in part that failure to comply with the requirements of the order "may result in the exclusion of testimony or exhibits." The first time that opposing counsel were given the opportunity to see the data in F.H. Ex. 3 was in the middle of the formal administrative hearing. The exhibit contained detailed raw statistical data. C.M. Ex. 19 did not try to present new raw statistical data. For these reasons, F.H. Ex. 3 and all testimony related to that exhibit by Mr. Menard was excluded from evidence. Later in the hearing, Florida Hospital sought to introduce the same data through the testimony of Wendy Thomas, the planning director and data manager for the local health council. T. 1050. Counsel for Florida Hospital first attempted to show the witness the document that had been excluded from evidence, and counsel for the other parties objected. T. 1047-1049. The Hearing Officer suggested to counsel that counsel should first ask the witness whether she had made a computation and then ask what was the basis of the computation, rather than show the witness the document. T. 1049. Counsel then attempted to do that. But when counsel asked the witness for her computation, it was still unclear whether the witness based her calculation upon data in the excluded document. T. 1053. After a number of other questions, it still was unclear whether the data in the excluded document was the basis for the calculation. T. 1053-1055. The Hearing Officer then asked the witness if she could identify F.H. Ex. 3. The witness said that F.H. Ex. 3 contained the exact type of information that she had in her own files, and that her document looked like F.H. Ex. 3, except it was photocopied smaller. T. 1056. During all of this exchange, the witness was never asked by counsel for Florida Hospital if she ever had an independent memory of the details of the underlying data, or whether, if that memory now had faded, looking at F.H. Ex. 3 would refresh her memory. Since it was apparent that the basis for the witness's calculation was the same raw statistical data as contained in F.H. Ex. 3, the Hearing Officer granted the motion to exclude the testimony. Later, in cross examination of the proffered testimony, the witness testified that the basis for her calculation was the use of a document containing the same data as F.H. Ex. 3. T. 1087-1088, 1091. Thus, counsel for Florida Hospital did not lay a proper predicate for attempting to use F.H. Ex. 3 to refresh the memory of either witness. As discussed above, had it done so, it is unlikely that either witness could have testified from memory as to the statistics because the data contained in F.H. Ex. 3 was too detailed to have ever been in the memory of either witness. Florida Hospital argued that Ms. Thomas's calculation should be admitted because the raw data had been in her possession for over a year. That argument is unpersuasive. The raw data was in the possession of Westlake Hospital as well. The issue is not whether opposing parties might have discovered the data on their own, but compliance with the prehearing order requiring exchange of important exhibits. For these reasons, the Hearing Officer's rulings as to exclusion of the foregoing evidence will remain unchanged. The Local Health Plan Applicability No part of the District VII local health plan was adopted by HRS as a rule when these applications were and reviewed. T. 1214. Several years ago, with respect to applications for certificates of need for short term psychiatric beds, HRS considered need and occupancy rates only on a district-wide basis. T. 1184. See e.g. C.M. Ex. 20, where HRS did not refer to the local health plan as to these issues in District VII. HRS has now changed that policy, however, and considers need and occupancy at the district level and by portions of the District if those issues are effectively required by the local health plan. T. 1184. For purposes of planning for short term psychiatric services, the local health plan divides District VII into county "planning areas." Orange County is thus a local health plan planning area. The local health plan does not use planning areas for substance abuse planning, and it does not explain why there is a difference in planning. Orlando General and Charter both propose to locate their proposed short term adult psychiatric beds in Orange County if granted certificates of need. Counties are convenient units for health planning purposes because population data exists by county. T. 1180. Census tracts and zip code areas are also convenient geographical units for health planning. T. 1180-81. If a proposed facility is to be located very close to the county line, it would make no difference which side of the line it was on with respect to the ability of the facility to serve patients originating in either county. T. 1181. Allocation of Net Need to Orange County The local health plan, policy 3, provides that if the application of rule 10-5.011(1)(o) indicates a need (at the District level), the need is to be allocated among the counties in the district using the state numeric need method by county. T. 1027-29; C.M. Ex. 5. Applying all of the age calculations for the projected populations and bed inventory of Orange County only, the local health plan allocates 55 new short term psychiatric beds to Orange County by 1992. However, applying the allocation ratios of the rule, there is an excess of 18 short term psychiatric beds in general hospitals, and thus none of the 55 beds would be mainly allocable to a general hospital. There is, nonetheless, a potential allocation of need of 73 beds in either a specialty or a general hospital, and the net need of 55 beds could be allocated to either a specialty hospital or a general hospital. The Orange County Mixed Occupancy Rate The local health plan, policy 4, applies the 75 percent occupancy standard to the county level. The policy explicitly calls for an average annual occupancy rate for all existing facilities in the planning area with respect to adult short term psychiatric beds. C.M. Ex. 5. Relying upon the calculation in the SAAR, but deleting Laurel Oaks, the mixed occupancy rate for Grange County in 1986 was less than 58.4 percent. This calculation only includes the beds at Florida Hospital (Orlando) and Orlando Regional Medical Center. The calculation is based upon 18,696 patient days at Florida Hospital (Orlando) in 85 beds, and 6,242 patient days in Orlando Regional Medical Center in 32 beds. There were 4,969 MDC 19 patient days occurring at Orlando General Hospital in 1986. There were 7,328 MDC 19 patient days occurring at Orlando Regional Medical Center in 1986. The eating disorder patient days occurred in Seminole County (Altamonte springs) and should not be counted in an Orlando occupancy rate. The only data as to patient days at Florida Hospital, Orlando only, is that found in C.M. Ex. 18, which is the same as the SAAR, which reports 18,696 patient days. (The MDC 19 data mixes the two units.) The number of licensed short term psychiatric beds in Orange County in 1986 was 117. All of these beds were licensed the entire year, and thus there was no need to do a weighted average of potential patient days for these beds. See C.M. Ex. 17, p. 11; O.G. Ex. 7, table 6. Using all of the foregoing patient days, the number of patient days was 30,993, the number of licensed short term psychiatric beds was 117, and the mixed occupancy rate for Orange County for 1986 was 72.6 percent. If it is not appropriate to count the 4,969 patient days at Orlando General Hospital in the Orange County occupancy rate, the 1986 Orange County occupancy rate was only 60.09 percent. Conversion of Existing Beds and Service to Indigent Patients Policy 5 of the local health plan states that excess bed capacity in, among other types of beds, medical/surgical beds, should be eliminated by reallocation of beds among the services, including psychiatric services. Policy 6 of the local health plan states that primary consideration should be given for project approval to applicants who satisfy to the greatest extent the following priorities: The first priority is to applicants who commit to serving "underserved client groups," including Medicaid, Baker Act, and medically indigent patients. The second priority is to applicants who convert underutilized existing beds. As will be discussed in the conclusions of law, Orlando General's application satisfies these priorities, and Charter Medical's application does not. Other Evidence as to Future Need Historically, health care providers have been reimbursed on a fee- for-service basis. The more services provided, the greater the payment. These insurance arrangements had little incentive to decrease the level of services. T. 720. In the last three or four years, the health insurance industry has changed its methods of providing insurance. A very large percentage of insured patient care is now managed by use of flat rates based upon a per person count (capitation). The rates do not increase related to utilization. Managed health care reimbursement uses a system whereby the health care provider is paid a flat rate annually for each insured person, and agrees to provide for the health care needs of all such persons generally without considering the degree of utilization during the year. T. 722-723. Under the capitation system, the provider has the incentive to provide only such care that, in intensity or duration, is the minimum that is clinically acceptable. T. 724. Psychiatric services have been included in the movement of the industry toward managed health care reimbursement rather than fee-for-service reimbursement. T. 722. The health care industry now offers competitive managed health care plans in central Florida, and the trend is for an increase in the availability of such methods of reimbursement in central Florida. T. 726-727. It is now 40 percent of the insurance market, and in the early 1990's, the percentage of managed health care may be twice that percentage. T. 727. The effect of the new reimbursement system is to substantially lower the length of stay, and to lower the rate of admission as well, at short term psychiatric hospitals. T. 724-725, 881-882, 1319-1320. Orlando General Hospital projected that its average length of stay would be 30 days in 1992. It has discovered from current experience that its average length of stay is about 15 days. T. 433, 464. District VII has recently experienced an increase in the availability of community based mental health facilities. These facilities provide a variety of mental health services, including brief inpatient care. The facilities do not require a certificate of need. T. 1046-1047, 1319. The Nature of the Proposed Programs Orlando General Hospital General Orlando General is a 197 bed acute care general osteopathic hospital located in Orlando, Florida, in Orange County. Orlando General proposes to convert a 35 bed medical-surgical unit to 24 short term psychiatric beds at a capital cost of $689,272. It would relocate 11 of its medical-surgical beds, and convert the remainder to short term psychiatric beds. Orlando General Hospital is located in the southeast portion of Orange County. T. 1107. It is the most eastward facility in Orange County with the exception of a long term psychiatric hospital now under construction. T. 1107. The primary service area of Orlando General by location of physicians offices is the southern half of Seminole County and the northern portion of Orange County. In particular, the hospital serves northeastern Orange County through the location of its physicians' offices. T. 412; O.G. Ex. 2, p. 27. The program of treatment described in Orlando General's application is no longer an accurate description of Orlando General's current program or of the intended program. T. 453. The treatment programs planned for the new short term psychiatric unit are comparable to the programs planned by Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., and are adequate and appropriate programs for short term psychiatric care. Psychiatric Care for the Elderly Orlando General Hospital would provide adequate and appropriate specialized short term psychiatric care for elderly patients, but would not provide such care in a unit physically separated from other patients. There currently is a split of professional opinion as to whether or not geriatric patients should be treated in a psychiatric unit separated (physically as well as programmatically) from other patients. There are benefits from both approaches. T. 1315-1317, 68, 74-76, 43-45, 770. Various Charter Medical hospitals do it both ways. T. 70. Osteopathic Medicine at Orlando General Hospital Osteopathic medicine differs from allopathic medicine in its emphasis upon viewing the interaction of all parts of the body, rather than a single part, and the use of muscular and skeletal manipulation. T. 1349, 753-754. Orlando General Hospital is an osteopathic hospital and has been osteopathic in nature since the 1960's. It was founded by osteopathic physicians, and the hospital abides by osteopathic philosophies. The Board of Trustees at the hospital are all osteopathic physicians. Although it has medical doctors on staff, the majority are osteopathic physicians Orlando General Hospital is accredited by the American Osteopathic Association to train osteopathic physicians, and has such training programs, primarily in family medicine. T. 412-414, 755. There are about 80 osteopathic physicians in Orange County, and the vast majority are on the staff at Orlando General Hospital. T. 760. Patients who prefer osteopathy, and osteopathic physicians, prefer an osteopathic hospital. Osteopathic physicians believe that they deliver better care to their patients in an osteopathic facility rather than an allopathic facility. About 30 percent of the psychiatric patients treated by Dr. Greene at Orlando General Hospital receive manipulation as a therapy. T. 1351. There is a shortage of osteopathic psychiatrists. T. 756. Other than Randall Greene, D.O., there are no osteopathic psychiatrists in the Orange County area. Id. There is a shortage of places for psychiatric resident training. There is no osteopathic psychiatric residency in Florida, and only a few in the country. T. 764, 1349. Consequently, osteopaths seeking to become psychiatrists often have to go to allopathic hospitals for residencies. T. 1349 Residency in an allopathic hospital is often not approved by the American College of osteopathic psychiatrists. Thus the osteopath who has had his or her residency in an allopathic hospital and lacks such approval will not be readily accepted as an osteopathic psychiatrist on the staff of an osteopathic hospital. T. 1350. Orlando General Intends to have a residency program in osteopathic psychiatric for at least two positions if it is granted a certificate of need. T. 762, 415. The Evolution of Osteo-Psychiatric Care at Orlando General Hospital Dr. Randall Greene came to Orlando in 1982. He is an osteopathic physician and psychiatrist. He initially was on the staff at four hospitals but soon discovered that other osteopathic physicians were referring patients needing psychiatric care to Orlando General Hospital because it was an osteopathic hospital. These physicians frequently asked Dr. Greene to provide psychiatric care at Orlando General. T. 754. Osteopathic physicians who referred their patients to Dr. Greene and to Orlando General Hospital continued to treat the physical ailments of those patients at Orlando General Hospital. T. 760. Dr. Greene now limits his psychiatric practice to Orlando General Hospital because of the large number of psychiatric patients being treated at the hospital. T. 756. Thirty to forty percent of the psychiatric patients come to Orlando General via the emergency room. T. 421, 445. Additionally, patients admitted to the new substance abuse program often need psychiatric care. T. 407. Orlando General has difficulty transferring its psychiatric patients to other hospitals. A number of the patients have no insurance or have only Medicaid coverage. T. 420. Orlando General Hospital is located in a lower economic area, and thus attracts patients of this type. Id. Patients who prefer osteopathic treatment also prefer not to be transferred to an allopathic hospital. T. 759. The increase in numbers of psychiatric patients served at Orlando General Hospital in medical-surgical beds helped to offset the hospital's loss of medical-surgical patient days during the same period. T. 452 Due to the large number of psychiatric patients, and the decline in need for medical-surgical beds, Orlando General hospital decided to apply for the instant certificate of need. Due to the osteopathic nature of the hospital, physicians, patients and the hospital prefer to keep these patients at Orlando General Hospital rather than refer them to an allopathic hospital. It is HRS's position that if a hospital does not advertise itself as having a distinct psychiatric unit and does not organize within itself a distinct psychiatric unit, the admission and treatment of psychiatric patients to medical-surgical beds on an "random" and unplanned basis is proper even the hospital does not have licensed psychiatric beds. T. 1191. Orlando General hospital does not hold itself out to the public through advertising as having a separate psychiatric unit. T. 468. Patient Mix & Commitment to Charity Care Orlando General Hospital currently provides a large portion of charity care for Orange County. T. 1100. In its 26 bed chemical dependency unit, Orlando General reserves 2 beds for indigents. T. 785. The unit also sets aside, as needed, one bed for any Florida nurse whose license is in jeopardy due to chemical dependence and who has no financial means to pay for treatment. Id. Orlando General Hospital typically has a larger amount of bad debt and charity care (for people who do not pay) than other hospitals in the area. T. 423. In 1987, Orlando General Hospital reported to the Hospital Cost Containment Board that it had $141,404 in charity care, and that it had $3,244,530 in bad debt. T. 657, 660. Bad debt constituted 9.7 percent of gross revenue. T. 660. Since it is very difficult to determine at admission whether the patient realistically can pay for services, a lot of this bad debt is, in a functional sense, charity care. T. 659-660. It is concluded from the foregoing that Orlando General Hospital has a genuine commitment to providing health care to persons who cannot pay. T. 422, 662. Orlando General Hospital projects that it will in its proposed 24 bed short term psychiatric unit 5 percent indigent patients, 8 percent Medicaid patients, 20 percent Medicare patients, 50 percent insured patients, and 17 percent private pay patients. These projections are reasonable and are consistent with Orlando General Hospital's current experience. T. 662-664; O.G. Ex. 2, p. 16. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc. General Charter Medical proposes to construct a 50 bed free standing short term psychiatric hospital in Orange County, Florida. The capital cost of the proposed project would $5,85,000. C.M. Ex. 1. Charter Medical would offer adult and geriatric short term psychiatric services in the proposed short term beds. As a free standing specialty hospital devoted entirely to short term psychiatric care, Charter Medical's proposal should be able to provide more space and additional therapies than would typically be found at a general hospital with a short term psychiatric unit. T. 47-50, 890-91. Charter Medical would provide adequate geriatric short term psychiatric care in a separate unit with separate programs consisting of the latest techniques for caring for the mentally ill elderly patient. Charter Medical's proposed facility would not be able to treat short term psychiatric patients who also have serious medical problems, which undoubtedly will include elderly patients. Charter Medical would have adequate transfer arrangements with a general hospital to serve the medical needs of its patients, and would have adequate staffing and equipment within the free standing specialty hospital to meet the routine and emergency medical needs of its patients. Staffing Orlando General and Charter Medical would be able to recruit, train, and retain adequate staff to operate its proposed short term psychiatric unit. T. 635-648, 849-852, T. 137-143. Lone Term Financial Feasibility Orlando General Hospital Charges When these applications were filed, HRS did not have standards for the contents of a pro forma of income and expenses. Orlando General Hospital initially projected a charge rate of $350 in 1987 and $375 in 1988. This charge rate was based upon the charge rate for Orlando General's substance abuse unit at that time, compared with a survey of five other hospitals having short term psychiatric beds. T. 425; O.G. Ex. 2, p. 24, 49. As of the summer of 1988, the Medicaid program reimbursed Orlando General Hospital for its MDC 19 (psychiatric) patients at the rate of $418 per day. T. 585. Charter Medical proposes to charge $475 per day during 1988. Florida Hospital currently charges between $425 and $445 per short term psychiatric patient day, and these charges do not include ancillary charges. T. 992. Westlake Hospital currently charges about $550 per short term psychiatric patient day. T. 888. Winter Park Pavilion is a freestanding psychiatric hospital with 39 adult psychiatric beds. The record does not indicate whether it is licensed for short or long term care. The facility charges about $500 per patient day, which does not include ancillary costs. T. 913, 918. Crossroads University Behavioral Center is a freestanding 100 bed long term psychiatric hospital that is under construction. T. 808. Crossroads has considered charges in the range of $500 to $600 per day, but has not definitely settled on the rate. T. 832-833. The charges proposed by Orlando General Hospital in its application are very reasonable, if not very conservative. Projected Utilization Orlando General Hospital's MDC 19 patient days (psychiatric patient days) have increased steadily from 1986. In 1986, the hospital had 4,969 MDC 19 patient days; in 1987, it had 7,779 MDC 19 patient days; and extrapolating (multiplying by 4) from the data for the first three months of 196, Orlando General could reasonably expect 11,804 MDC 19 patient days in 1988. O.G. Ex. 2, p. 11; T. 516. Since a 24 bed unit at 100 percent occupancy would only generate 8,760 patient days, it is unreasonable to use 11,804 as the estimate of patient days in 1988. However, it is concluded that Orlando General Hospital would have no difficulty at all in very quickly filling its proposed 24 bed unit to capacity. Expenses Orlando General Hospital's application estimated that direct expenses of the proposed 24 bed short term psychiatric unit would be $801,505 in 1987, $839,080. In 1988, and $887,030 in 1989. O.G. Ex. 2. These are reasonable projections of direct expenses. The pro forma filed by Orlando General Hospital in its application did not include an estimate of allocated expenses. The allocated expenses would typically have been 60 percent of total expenses, and the direct expenses only 40 percent of total expenses. T. 698. The projected direct expenses for 1988 in Orlando General Hospital's application were $839,080. Since that is only 40 percent of the total expense, the total projected expense (including 60 percent for indirect allocated expense) would be $2,097,700. Long Term Financial Feasibility If Orlando General Hospital charged $375 per patient day in 1988, and had 8,760 patient days, as is reasonable to expect, given its actual experience, Orlando General would have $3,285,000 in gross revenue for 1988. Assuming that net revenue, after additions and after accounting for contractuals and bad debt, will be the same percentage of gross revenue as shown in Orlando General's application, which was 76.74 percent, this would generate a net revenue of $2,520,909. This net revenue would entirely cover not only the direct expenses but also the allocated expenses, and would leave profit of $423,209. All of the remaining issues raised by the parties as to the accuracy of Orlando General's estimates of nursing expense or bad debt are irrelevant given the large amount of leeway Orlando General would have, if necessary, to raise its charges from $375 to something closer to the charges of other area hospitals. In summary, Orlando General Hospital's proposal is financially feasible in the long term. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc. Charter Medical's proposed charges include charges for physicians who admit patients, perform histories and physicals, and make daily medical rounds. The proposed charges are reasonable. If there were need, Charter Medical's proposal would be financially feasible in the long term. The need for Charter Medical's proposed facility has not been proven by a preponderance of the evidence, however. See the Conclusions of Law herein. While the numerical need rule as applied to Orange County shows a need for 55 beds, in actual practice that need is a need for osteopathic psychiatric care. The thirty or so patients currently treated on a daily basis at Orlando General Hospital ended up at that hospital, rather than Orlando Regional Medical Center or Florida Hospital, primarily because the patients preferred osteopathic care and were admitted to Orlando General Hospital by osteopathic physicians. Absent action by HRS to stop Orlando General Hospital from treating these patients, the patients would not be available to Charter Medical in its proposed facility. This would leave Charter Medical in a situation of opening a new 50 bed facility when the county occupancy rate in 1986 was 60 percent in the only two licensed facilities in the area. It would also leave Charter Medical in a situation of opening a new facility in the face of the trend to managed health care and the certainty that the average length of stay for short term psychiatric care by 1992 will decrease from current levels. For these reasons, Charter Medical has not proven financially feasibility in the long term by a preponderance of the evidence. Quality of Care Orlando General Hospital Orlando General Hospital would provide care of good quality comparable to care that would be provided by Charter Medical. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc. Charter Medical Corporation is a large corporation that has experience in the operation of a large number of psychiatric hospitals. That expertise would be available to insure that the care provided in Orange County would be of good quality. Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., would provide care of good quality comparable to care that would be provided by Orlando General. Comparative Review as to Important Differences The Orlando General Hospital Application Orlando General Hospital intends to convert 24 underutilized medical and surgical beds to 24 short term psychiatric beds. T. 517. Since the project calls for conversion of existing facilities, the capital cost is $700,000, and does not include the construction of new buildings. T. 517. Since the capital cost is relatively low, the project will not drain away a large amount of reimbursement from reimbursement funding sources, thus making those funds available to other health care facilities. T. 1223. As a licensed general hospital, Orlando General Hospital's patients including the patients that would be served by the proposed short term psychiatric unit, would be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement T. 1224. Orlando General Hospital has a good record in Orange County of serving indigent patients, and currently is providing care to a large portion of the indigents cared for by Orange County. T. 1099-1100. As discussed in the section concerning osteopathic care, Orlando General Hospital's proposal for a short term psychiatric unit would have a number of benefits to the practice of osteopathic medicine in the region, and the availability of osteopathic care to patients desiring that form of care. Patients in the short term psychiatric unit at Orlando General Hospital could be transferred to a medical bed when a medical need arises without having to be transported by an ambulance. The Charter Medical Application Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Charter Medical Corporation. Charter Medical Corporation has been in existence for 20 years and has 81 hospitals. Of these, 68 are psychiatric or substance abuse facilities. Charter Medical thus has extensive resources and experience to provide very good psychiatric care at the proposed facility. As a free standing hospital dedicated solely to short term psychiatric care, it is reasonable to expect that Charter Medical's facility will tend to provide more space, more varied programs, and more intensive patient care than a general hospital. This would occur because in a general hospital, the psychiatric unit must compete with medical units for allocation of resources, and in some hospitals, the psychiatric unit is given a lower priority due to the tendency of such hospitals to emphasize the medical aspect of their services. T. 47-49. Charter Medical's facility would not treat Medicaid patients, and it proposes to serve a very small percentage of indigent patients. Charter proposes in future years after the second year to provide 1.5 percent of gross revenue as charity care, and 5 percent as bad debt. T. 377-79, 197. Charter Medical's facility would serve primarily private pay and insured patients, thus draining away these paying patients from other hospitals, to the detriment of other hospitals. T. 971. The Substantial Interest of Florida Hospital If a certificate of need were granted to Charter Medical, Florida Hospital would suffer an adverse impact by loss of patients and additional competition for staff. T. 971-972, 1318-1321, 1327.
Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended in case number 87-4748 that a final order be entered denying the application of Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc., to construct and operate a new 50 bed short term psychiatric hospital, and in case number 87-4753 that a final order be entered granting the application of Orlando General Hospital to convert 24 medical-surgical beds to short term psychiatric beds. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX 1 TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4748 and 87-4753 The following are rulings upon proposed findings of fact which have either been rejected or which have been adopted by reference. The numbers used are the numbers used by the parties. Statements of fact in this appendix or proposed findings of fact adopted by reference in this appendix are additional findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by Charter Medical: 3-5. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The need is for beds in either a specialty or a general hospital. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The operational use of the beds is not relevant to the occupancy rate. Had the beds been restricted as a matter of licensure to children, like Palm Bay or Laurel Oaks, the beds would not have been potentially available for adults. Only in that case would exclusion of these beds have been proper. The operational use of the beds is not relevant to the occupancy rate. The testimony regarding the use of the word "existing" in the health planning field has been rejected as not persuasive. The context of such use was not explained, and thus a finding cannot be made that the use of the word is properly applicable to the way HRS intends the word to be used in its occupancy rule. The equation of "existing" with "operational" confuses capacity and need as discussed elsewhere in this recommended order. The HRS interpretation is the most reasonable construction of the word, and leads to a meaning far more consistent with the purposes of the certificate of need regulatory law than does the equation of "existing" with merely being operational. The certificate of need law is aimed at determining need five years into the future. How a hospital may temporarily operate its licensed beds during that period to respond to fluctuations in demand and operational idiosyncrasies at the particular hospital is irrelevant to the question of whether HRS should grant certificates of need and additional licensed capacity within the District. Dr. Luke's calculation was conservative and correct, but a better calculation is the one by Orlando General's expert (78 percent) that uses MDC 19 patient days. The only relevant count is 105 licensed beds at the two facilities. The last sentence is rejected for lack of credible evidence from which to draw that inference, as explained elsewhere in this recommended order. 20-21. The only relevant count is licensed beds. 22. Orlando General's average daily census was 13.6 based upon 4,969 MDC 19 patient days in 1986. 23-24. The only relevant count is licensed beds. 28. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 30. It is true that the health care needs of the metropolitan Orlando impact counties adjacent to Orange County due to the sprawl of that urban area across several county lines. But there is sufficient expert evidence in this record to conclude that generally speaking, the local health council has not acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its choices of counties as health planning areas for purposes of allocation of bed need and for purposes of applying occupancy rates. Nonetheless, the that the urban extent of the metropolitan Orlando area is important has been accepted in this recommended order with respect to the conclusion that the factor that the Orange County occupancy rate is only slightly below 75 percent is entitled to less weight in this case. 32, 33, 35, 37-63. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 64 (first sentence). It is realistically expected that Charter Medical will devote 1.5 percent of its gross patient revenue to barity care. T. 377- 379. 65-70. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 71-72. Financial feasibility has not been shown due to lack of need. Lack of need will result in insufficient occupancy and revenue. 73-74. The extrapolation from the actual trend of increase in patient days in District VII for the years 1983-1987 to create a projection of patient days in 1988 through 1992 would have been a valid and important way to show need, and would have been accepted had the projection accounted for the trend in the industry toward shorter lengths of stay due to changes in methods of payments for mental health care. The extrapolation simply assumes that the past will continue. In this case, there is substantial reason to believe that the past will not continue, that the base data, 1983-1987, is not valid for predicting patient days in 1992 because the patient days in 1992 will largely be paid for under a new system, a system that discourages inpatient stays beyond that which is absolutely necessary from a clinical point of view. Charter Medical projects that it will rely upon insurance for payment 67 percent of the time, so the changes in insurance payments will substantially affect patient days in 1992 at its proposed facility. 75-85. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 89. While osteopathic psychiatric care is essentially the same as allopathic psychiatric care, there are two critical differences. Osteopathic medicine in general emphasizes consideration of the functioning of the body as a whole; allopathic medicine does not. Secondly, osteopathic medicine utilizes muscular and skeletal manipulation in treatment, including psychiatric treatment, and allopathic medicine does not. These two differences are sufficiently marked for patients to have a preference for one or the other approach. 91-92. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 93-94. These proposed findings are true and are adopted by reference, but the findings do not prove that the quality of care at Orlando General Hospital would not be adequate in 1992. It was apparent that Dr. Greene's heavy caseload was not an optimum circumstance. However, at the time of the , Orlando General had four staff psychiatrists. T. 1355. Dr. Greene testified that the care was "basically" the same, but his testimony clearly reflected his opinion that the "deeper" differences were significant. T. 756, 1350-1354. The record cited does not support a finding that the majority of the patients transferred were indigent. That question was not asked. This proposed finding places the cart before the horse. Osteopathic physicians gravitate to Orlando General Hospital to practice osteopathy. In the practice of osteopathy, they achieve many job satisfactions, including care of patients and making money. 98-99. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant because based upon the past, not upon a future having more staff psychiatrists. Moreover, it is clinically acceptable for other professionals to provide therapy and counseling. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. The program description in the application was superseded by evidence during the formal administrative hearing. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Orlando General Hospital is an existing hospital that already has these functions. It may need some augmentation of staff in these areas, but if it does, it would be an unreasonable conclusion to make that it would fail to add such 103-106. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The only exception is the last sentence in proposed finding 106. The number 18 is not supported by the record cited. This method has not been shown to be unreasonable. It is true that it was the method used. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. There was an accounting for bad debt. O.G. Ex. 2, p. 48. The point is essentially irrelevant. A 10 percent increase based upon 1987 salaries would be only about 20,000. Moreover, Charter Medical stipulated in the prehearing stipulation that the salaries of all personnel are reasonable. The proposed finding of fact is true but irrelevant. A pro forma does not have to comport with generally accepted accounting principles. Even with the addition of these charges, the resultant charge is comparable to charges of other area hospitals, including. Charter Medical's proposed charge of $475, which with inflation would increase rapidly to $500. 113-122, 124. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 125-127. Proof that an existing health care program is in sound financial condition is essentially irrelevant to the question of whether that program has a substantial interest sufficient to permit intervention into a section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., formal proceeding. Proof of competition for the same patients in the same service area is sufficient to show that the existing program will be "substantially affected" to entitle it to intervene. Section 381.709(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1987). Florida Hospital has proven its substantial interest by showing that the addition of new short term psychiatric beds, particularily a new facility like proposed by Charter Medical, will increase competition in Orange County for patients and staff. T. 881, 883, 649, 855-856. 128-129. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference 130. Mr. Holton's testimony was not only based upon consideration of the data mentioned in this proposed finding of fact, but also his experience in general with managed health care plans and the effect such plans have had upon the market place. The proposed finding that his testimony was not credible is rejected. 131 (first two sentences), 132-133. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. Findings of Fact proposed by Orlando General Hospital: 7-12, 17, 19, 29. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The statement is true only from the perspective of the osteopathic psychiatrist and with respect to osteopathic care. Allopathic physicians disagree. The second sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 34. The second sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 38-49, 51-60. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The proposition that separate geriatric units offer no benefits to geriatric patients is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. The proposition that there is no problem in mixing the elderly with younger patients, or that an elderly patient does much better in a mixed population, is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. The second and third sentences are contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. 67-71, 73-80. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 86-87. While these proposed findings of fact are true, they are only marginally relevant since the ratio is measured as of 1992, not 1988. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. It is unclear when Dr. Greene meant when he testified that his census was 35 to 40 patients. For the first 90 days of 1988, the hospital had 2,951 MDC 19 patient days, or 32.8 patients per day. The analysis with respect to "existing" beds and the county analysis have been rejected as explained in this recommended order. The last sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 97-102. The legal argument that beds temporarily not in operation are not "existing" has been rejected as explained in this recommended order. Thus, these findings are not relevant. 105, 107 (last sentence). These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 109. The second sentence is rejected as a finding of fact because the health planning context was not adequately explained. 110-111. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 114-115. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 117. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 118-120. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. 122. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 123, 124, 126, 127, 129-131, 133. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The proposed finding of fact is true, but has not been shown to impact the financial feasibility of the Charter Medical proposal. The indirect costs within a single hospital are more relevant to long term financial feasibility of the proposed project than the indirect costs to a single hospital from a parent corporation that has over 60 such hospitals. 136, 147, 151, 152. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The patient body count for the first three months of 1988 was 32.8. O.G. Ex. 2, p. 11. The "consciousness" of a corporation is difficult . Orlando General Hospital was well aware that its medical-surgical census was decreasing and its psychiatric population was increasing. It is true that the increase of its psychiatric population was largely due to causes outside the control of the hospital, however, and not due to marketing efforts by the hospital. 161 (last sentence), 162. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. This proposed finding of fact is only marginally relevant because the result could be an average caused a minority of states who do things differently. Moreover, there Is no evidence that Florida is like this. The third sentence is subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. It is true, however, and is adopted by reference. 167. The statement is true only if HRS allows Orlando General Hospital to continue to serve this large number of psychiatric patients without having a certificate of need. If the practice were discontinued, some of the patients would be served by other hospitals in the District, including Florida Hospital. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 174, 176. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 177. The current state of access to short term psychiatric services in eastern Orange County was not credibly proven. 179. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. Findings of fact proposed by HRS: 1, 2, 3, 4. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. 5, 6. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 13. The number should be 64, not 63. 22. The occupancy rate is a mathematical attempt to measure the degree to which the District VII capacity to serve adult short term psychiatric patients has been used up. The theory implicit in the rule is that, with respect to adult capacity, the decision to add new capacity should be delayed until the old capacity is at least 75 percent or more used up. The rate has a numerator (patient days) and a denominator (the real capacity). Any argument that tries to ignore real patient days occurring in the District, or real capacity to serve those patients, is unreasonable. Findings of fact proposed by Florida Hospital: The second sentence is true, but the issue is not she license of the beds is, but what type of patient day is generated by that service. The preponderance of the evidence is that those were short term psychiatric patient days. The first sentence is rejected for the reasons stated above. 19-21. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 20-27. F.H. Ex. 3 was excluded from evidence, and the testimony related to that exhibit was also excluded from evidence for the reasons stated elsewhere in this recommended order. 28. This proposed finding fails to consider the MDC 19 evidence of patient days at Florida Hospital and Orlando Regional Medical Center. 29-30. These proposed findings of fact are true, and the reasoning therein is part of the reason why the denominator of the fraction that is the occupancy rate must be licensed beds. 31. A correction to the number of patient days at Westlake Hospital is legally appropriate, but the evidence for such a correction has been excluded from the record for reasons having nothing to do with the legal propriety of such a correction. 33. These are matters of law, and thus not appropriate as proposed findings of fact. 34-39. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The fact that existing facilities may have beds available to treat future patients is not inconsistent with a decision to grant a certificate of need for additional licensed beds. The occupancy rate threshold in the rule is 75 percent occupancy, not 100 percent occupancy. It is to be expected that the District will have 25 percent or less of its beds unoccupied when new beds are approved. 41, 43-44, 46-47. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. These proposed findings of fact are irrelevant. See section 381.705(1)(g) and (h), Fla. Stat. (1987). This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. This proposed finding of fact is contrary to the credible evidence. To the contrary, where need exists, these are grounds for determining which of the competing applicants should be approved. 60. A conclusion that the occupancy rates are "stable" cannot be made from data based only upon calendar year 1986, which was two years ago, and six years from 1992, the time when need is projected. 61-69. These findings of fact are true. Even where there is need, the opening of the new facility normally lures some patients away from existing facilities. But if need exists sufficient to grant a certificate of need, this short term harm to existing providers is irrelevant. Finally, health care costs would not increase if there is need. While it is true that the Charter Medical utilization projections were initially prepared without a close analysis of District VII, the projections are nonetheless reasonable as discussed elsewhere in this recommenced order. Inflation of expenses without projection of inflation in revenues is an incomplete and unreasonable mode of projection. T. 229-230. Given the size of the Charter Medical Corporation and the number of hospitals it owns and operates, the condition of one more hospital will not Increase home office expenses. Those expenses will exist whether this project exists or not. The financial feasibility of the project in Orlando, therefor, need not consider home office expenses. T. 242-244. These proposed findings of fact are subordinate to findings of fact that have been adopted. They are true, however, and are adopted by reference. The quantitative relevancy of this proposed finding of fact has not been shown. The proposed finding of fact is otherwise true. Orlando General Hospital's current patient census is a sufficient basis for a finding that its projected occupancy rate is reasonable. Charges proposed in an application for a certificate of need are not promises binding upon the applicant. In future years, the applicant is reasonably expected to make substantial changes in its charge structure based upon market conditions. Proposed charges, as well as proposed changes to charges to meet altered contingencies beyond the control of the applicant, is entirely appropriate for analysis in a certificate of need case. The only relevant question is whether the altered charge compares favorably with competing applicants. 81-83. Florida Hospital proved that the market for staff is competitive and that hiring staff is difficult at the moment. But it did not prove that the applicants would fail to hire adequate staff to operate their proposed facilities. T. 1327. 92-102. These proposed findings of fact summarize proposed findings of fact which have previously been addressed. APPENDIX 2 TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4748 and 87-4753 Rule 10-5.008(3), Fla. Admin. Code, provides that "[s]ubsequent to an application being deemed complete by the Office of Health Planning and Development, no further information or amendment will be accepted by the Department." (E.S.) The rule states that the Department will accept no information after the application is deemed complete. The words used are not ambiguous or unclear. Thus, if normal rules of construction were to be followed, the conclusion would be drawn $ha the Department is bound by its own clear rule, and cannot, by interpretation, add exceptions. But an equally valid rule of construction is that absurd results must be avoided. Certificate of need cases, particular ones like the case at bar, are highly competitive and complicated. It would be unreasonable to require the applicants to prove applications that have become erroneous due to the passage of time. While the question is a close one, the Hearing Officer has concluded that it would be better to ignore the clear words of the rule, and attempt to apply the evolving interpretative policy of the Department to avoid an absurd result. The following appear to be the existing final orders of the Department interpreting rule 10-5.008(3), and its predecessor, published in the Florida Administrative Law Reports. Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Palm Beach, 8 F.A.L.R. 4650 (September 24, 1986); Arbor Health Care Company, Inc., d/b/a Martin Health Center, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 709 (October 13, 1986); Mease Hospital and Clinic v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 159 (October 13, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Collier County v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 8 F.A.L.R. 5883 (December 8, 1986); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Nursing Center of Highlands County, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1081 (December, 1986); Manatee Mental Health Center, Inc. d/b/a Manatee Crisis Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1430 (February 2, 1987); Health Care and Retirement Corporation of America, d/b/a Heartland of Hillsborouh, v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1630 (February 5, 1987); Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 9 F.A.L.R. 1628 (March 2, 1987); Psychiatric Institutes of America, Inc., d/b/a Psychiatric Institute of Orlando v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 1626a (March 5, 1987) ; Manor Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2139 (March 24, 1987); Wuesthoff Health Services, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2110 (April 17, 1987); Hialeah Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 9 F.A.L.R. 2363 (May 1, 1987); Palms Residential Treatment Center, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Palms Residential Treatment Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., 10 F.A.L.R. 1425 (February 15, 1988). These final orders contain the following statements concerning the Department's interpretation of rule 10-5.008(3) and its evolving policy with respect to changes to applications for certificates of need during section proceedings and admissibility of new information not contained in the original applications: Health Care and Retirement, supra, 8 F.A.L.R. 1081: During 120.57 proceedings, an application may be updated to address facts extrinsic to the application such as interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories. An applicant is not allowed to update by adding additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS. Manatee Mental Health Center, supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 1431: ... HRS has authority by statute to issue a CON for an identifiable portion of . Section 381.4C4(8), Florida Statutes. MMHC's "amended" proposal reduced the number of beds sought, and was properly considered during the 120.57 proceedings. Manor Care. Inc., supra, 9 F.A.L.R. at 1628: The amended applications [amended to address needs of Alzheimer's disease patients] changed the scope and character of the proposed facilities and services and thus, must be reviewed initially at HRS... [ limited the denovo concept by requiring that evidence of changed circumstances be considered only if relevant to the application. Hialeah Hospital, Inc., 9 F.A.L.R. at 2366: It is recognized that more than a year may pass between the free form decision by HRS and the final 120.57 hearing and this passage of time may require updating an application by evidence of changed circumstances such as the' effect of inflation on interest and construction costs. For the sake of clarity HRS would avoid the use of the word "amendment" to describe such updating. Such evidence of changed circumstances beyond the control of the applicant is relevant to the original application and is admissible at the 120.57 hearing. Taking the easiest first, those items explicitly listed by the Department in the first Health Care and Retirement case, "interest rates, inflation of construction costs, current occupancies, compliance with new state or local health plans, and changes in bed or service inventories," which change after the application is initially filed, are permitted. Not permitted are "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS." The remainder of the Department's incipient policy, as presently articulated, is obscure. The word "extrinsic" without the list of examples is of little guidance. The application is only an idea on paper. Anything new, other than the bare words on the paper as originally filed, is literally "extrinsic" thereto. The concept of whether the new information changes the "scope and character of the facilities and services" originally reviewed in free form action by the Department is similarly of little guidance because the phrase "scope and character" can mean practically anything. Of fundamental difficulty is whether this phrase is intended to select substantial changes to the original application, or all changes. For example, if the original application proposes separate shower stalls and tubs for double rooms, but the amended application proposes a combination shower and tub, has the "scope and character" of the "facilities and services" changed? The phrase "additional services, beds, construction, or other concepts not initially reviewed by HRS" is similarly vague. What is a service or construction or a concept not originally reviewed? Would this include the change in bathing equipment discussed above? The concept of "control" of the applicant over the information that goes into the original application is the only phrase that gives applicants any guidance. The word "control" probably is intended as a "knew or reasonably should have "known" standard. If the applicant reasonably should have known about the information and should have provided the Department with the information as a part of its original application, then the new information cannot be considered during the formal administrative hearing. The Hearing Officer will be guided, thus, by the explicit list of items provided by the Department in the Health Care and Retirement case, and by the concept of "control" provided by the Hialeah case. COPIES FURNISHED: For Agency HRS Theodore D. Mack. Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Building Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (904) 488-8673 Charter Medical-Orange County, Inc. Fred W. Baggett, Esquire Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 222-6891 William D. Hoffman, Jr., Esquire Deborah J. Winegard, Esquire King & Spalding 2500 Trust Company Tower Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 572-4600 Orlando Regional Medical Center, Inc. Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire Mateer, Harbert & Bates, P. A. 100 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 (305) 425-9044 Orlando General Hospital, Inc. Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire 1363 East Lafayette Street Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 878-0215 Florida Hospital Stephen K. Boone, Esquire Robert P. Mudge, Esquire Boone, Boone, Klingbeil & Boone, P. A. 1001 Avenida del Circo Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 (813) 488-6716 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based on the admissions and stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, the following facts are found. Admitted facts The Charter facility will have a total of 60 beds and was preliminarily approved by DHRS for the following units: (a) 16 short-term adolescent psychiatric beds; (b) 16 long-term adolescent psychiatric beds; (c) 12 long-term child psychiatric beds; and (d) 16 long-term adolescent substance abuse beds. DHRS preliminarily approved a total project cost of $7,376,843 on December 2, 1983. As part of its decision, DHRS imposed as a condition and Charter agrees to dedicate 5 percent of its patient days and revenue to Baker Act patients. The Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR") population projections for Broward County for 1988 is 1,252,660. Management personnel and funds for capital and operating expenditures are reasonably available to Charter for its proposed facility. The Charter facility will be geographically accessible to all residents of Broward County. Findings related to the application process Charter filed its application on August 15, 1983, and it was assigned to Mr. Straughn for review. On August 29, 1983, Mr. Straughn sent an "omissions" letter to Charter requesting additional information. On October 13, 1983, Charter sent a response to the "omissions" letter providing Mr. Straughn with additional information about the application. Charter's application was deemed complete on October 15, 1983. Based on information available to DHRS at that time it was impossible for DHRS to review the project because DHRS did not know what kind of beds Charter was asking for. Prior to the public hearing on November 8, 1983, Mr. Straughn was totally confused as to whether Charter wanted short-term or long-term beds. He called Mr. Holbrook at Charter and asked for clarification. By letter dated November 8, 1983, which was undoubtedly first presented to the DHRS at the public hearing held on that date, Charter explained exactly what kinds of beds it was seeking. Prior to November 8, 1983, it was not clear what kinds of beds Charter was seeking. And although the matter is still somewhat ambiguous and not completely free from doubt, careful review of the original application tends to indicate that the original application was for all short-term beds. Findings regarding the general nature of Charter's proposed facility and programs Charter is mostly interested in providing treatment to "salvageable adolescents and children." Charter is not interested in treating chronic patients. Chronically ill patients require a longer period of treatment than other patients. If Charter is not treating chronically ill patients, its treatment periods will be on the short end of the treatment spectrum. The proposed Charter programs do not contain any program which would be appropriate for the treatment of severe sociopathic patients. Although Charter contends that its 12-bed child psychiatric unit will be a long-term unit, the program it describes for the child psychiatric unit is clearly a short-term program. Charter contends that one of its proposed 16-bed adolescent units would have an average length of stay of 25 days and that the other 16-bed adolescent unit would have an average length of stay of more than 90 days. Other evidence discussed below indicates that Charter's expectations of average lengths of stay in excess of 90 days are unwarranted given the nature of the programs proposed by Charter and the experience of existing providers in Broward County and Charter's facility in Ft. Myers, Florida. The programs described in the Charter application are identical to the programs described in the earlier North Beach application. The North Beach application was for a short-term facility. There is nothing in the treatment programs described in the Charter proposal that makes them long-term programs. The proposed Charter treatment programs are identical to existing programs at Florida Medical Center and Fort Lauderdale Hospital. The diagnostic and evaluation portion of the Charter programs is no different from what is currently being done at Florida Medical Center and Fort Lauderdale Hospital. In reality, diagnosis and treatment occur simultaneously. From the day a patient is admitted he is being treated as well as diagnosed. There is no advantage in segregating patients who are being evaluated and patients who are being treated. The programs proposed by Charter are very typical of the programs used by most child and adolescent psychiatric hospitals in the United States. A condition placed on the certificate of need that Charter is seeking is that at least 5 percent of the projected patient days and projected revenues will be comprised of Baker Act patients. Long-term child and adolescent psychiatric patients are generally chronic patients. It is a contradiction in terms for Charter to say on one hand that it is a long-term facility and to then say it will not treat chronic patients. The step system is a treatment program typically used in short-term psychiatric facilities. It does not work with chronic child and adolescent patients that require long-term treatment. The Charter proposal envisions extensive cooperation and coordination with other forms of existing health care resources, particularly in discharge planning and follow-up. Given the nature of the types of patients Charter proposes to treat (acute patients) and the experience of existing providers in Broward County and in Charter's Ft. Myers facility in treating similar patients, the most reasonable expectation is that the average length of stay of patients at Charter's facility would be substantially less than the 90 days or more it projects. The most reasonable expectation is that the average length of stay of child and adolescent patients at Charter's proposed facility would be 60 days, or less. Findings regarding Charter's ability to provide quality of care Charter Medical is committed to providing a high quality of care at its facilities. It operates other psychiatric hospitals in Florida and does not appear to have experienced any quality of care problems in those facilities. Nevertheless, Charter only proposes to use 29 FTE's for its 60-bed facility in Broward County, which is a lower ratio of staff to patients than the current practice at some existing facilities. Also, Charter proposes to use some LPN's on its staff, while current practice at some existing facilities is to use only registered nurses. Findings regarding Charter's occupancy experience with other new psychiatric hospitals It has been Charter's past experience with opening new psychiatric hospitals, that the reasonable expectation for average occupancy during the first year of operation is in the neighborhood of 30 percent to 45 percent. This is true even when the facility has strong community and physician support. Of ten psychiatric hospitals opened by Charter during the past three years, most had occupancy rates during their first year of operation in the range of 30 percent to 45 percent. One was less, around 20 percent. Its best was around 60 percent, which was in Charter's home city. Charter's experience with bad debt during the first year of operation is in the range of 6 percent to 8 percent. Findings regarding one of Charter's other Florida psychiatric hospitals Charter Glade Hospital in Ft. Myers, Florida, is a psychiatric hospital with 104 beds. It offers the following programs: --adolescent programs --adolescent addictive disease program --adult addictive disease/chemical dependency program --general adult psychiatric program The average occupancy rate at Charter Glades Hospital during its first year of operation was 49 percent. A consideration which contributed to this occupancy rate is the fact that Charter Glades has no nearby competition offering psychiatric services. The average length of stay for adolescent patients at Charter Glades Hospital is between 45 and 55 days. Charter Oakdale uses the step or level system in its treatment programs for adolescents. It is a very typical form of adolescent psychiatric treatment and is essentially the same form of treatment presently used in the existing adolescent psychiatric programs in Broward County. It is also essentially the same form of treatment that is proposed for Charter's Broward County facility. Findings regarding the District and State Plans and DHRS information The applicable District Plan does not address the need for long-term psychiatric or substance abuse beds in District X. The District Plan recommends, in essence, that with regard to short-term psychiatric and substance abuse services, any new facilities should not exceed the bed need methodology set forth in Rule 10-5.11(25), Florida Administrative Code. The District Plan recommends that both psychiatric and substance abuse facilities should provide specialty services by population, age, and socioeconomic characterization. The District Plan also recommends that all psychiatric facilities should provide for a continuum of care. The District Plan recommends that inpatient psychiatric facilities have a minimum of 20 beds. The District Plan recommends a smooth transition between inpatient and outpatient services. The State Health Plan is too old and out of date to be a useful tool in the evaluation of applications for certificates of need. The District Plan does not indicate how many of the existing beds are dedicated to child or adolescent patients. Therefore, it is difficult for the DHRS to apply the separate 75 percent occupancy standard for adults and the 70 percent occupancy standard for children and adolescents. According to the best information available to the DHRS, during 1983 the combined (child, adolescent, and adult) occupancy rate in Broward County was approximately 68 percent, which is below both rule standards. (The evidence in this case indicates that the occupancy rates are somewhat lower, as noted hereinafter). The basis for the DHRS proposal to approve the short- term beds notwithstanding the fact that the occupancy standards were below those provided in the applicable rules was described as follows by Mr. Porter: However, in view of the proposal in its entirety, to include the long-term child and adolescent beds which are being proposed in this facility, and the absence of any such beds, a demonstration of need for those beds in this district, that is an overriding factor to specifically that criteria where occupancy of existing short-term beds does not exceed the standard quoted in the rule. There is no specific rule formula or methodology for determining need for long-term psychiatric or substance abuse services. The reasoning behind the DHRS proposal to approve the long-term beds included in this proposal was explained as follows by Mr. Porter: I think in combination of the fact that there were no similar and like services in this particular district, certainly through supporting documentation in the application as well as some statements which were made in the District X mental health plan, and an indication of the number of patients who were also seeking care at Grant Center Hospital. A combination of all those factors led the Department to conclude that there was, in fact, a need for long-term psychiatric and substance abuse services for children and adolescents in District X. The Bureau of Economic and Business Research ("BEBR") population projections for Broward County for 1989 is 1,264,869. Findings regarding the same or similar services in Broward County There are seven existing facilities in District X which provide inpatient psychiatric services, The DHRS regards all seven of these facilities as "short-term" psychiatric facilities, but the evidence indicates otherwise. The seven existing facilities are: Broward General Medical Center Florida Medical Center Imperial Point Memorial Hospital Coral Ridge Fort Lauderdale Mental Health Institute Broward Pavilion The DHRS Certificate of Need Review Section does not have a reliable inventory of psychiatric beds in Broward County or South Florida in general. The DHRS does not have any clear information on the number of existing psychiatric beds that are adult beds and the number that are child or adolescent beds. General hospitals do not report occupancy by service. Accordingly, the DHRS does not have available any occupancy rates for the most recent 12-month period for psychiatric beds in general hospitals in Broward County. Pursuant to the best information available to the DHRS, the occupancy of the freestanding specialty psychiatric facilities in Broward County was as follows for the most recently documented 12-month period: Coral Ridge Psychiatric 74 beds 60.0 percent Ft. Lauderdale Hospital 58 beds 40.4 percent Hollywood Pavilion 46 beds 58.1 percent TOTALS 178 beds 51.1 percent The following hospitals in Broward County offer specialized inpatient units for adolescents: Fort Lauderdale Hospital, South Florida State Hospital, Community Hospital of South Broward and Coral Ridge Hospital. South Florida State Hospital also has a specialty inpatient unit for children. Fort Lauderdale Hospital and Community Hospital of South Broward offer specialized inpatient substance abuse programs for adolescents. The following hospitals all treat adolescents, but do not have specialized units for adolescents: Broward General Hollywood Pavilion Hollywood Memorial Imperial Point Florida Medical Center has 74 approved psychiatric beds and has 54 or 59 presently in operation. There are plans to construct more physical space to move up to full authorization. They will use existing beds to increase their psychiatric beds to the full authorized number of psychiatric beds. Florida Medical Center has a closed adolescent unit of 20 beds and a closed adult unit of approximately 25 beds. It also has a small geriatric unit. Florida Medical Center does not have beds specifically designated for patients under age 11, although, on rare occasions, it treats patients under age 11. Florida Medical Center has very high quality programs for adolescent psychiatric patients. These programs are in substance no different from the programs described in Charter's application. All psychiatric hospitals treating acute patients have behavior modification programs based on rewards and punishments. Florida Medical Center offers all of the proposed Charter programs in a short-term psychiatric program. The diagnostic and evaluation program described in the Charter application is not considered a separate program at Florida Medical Center. It is a standard process of every psychiatric admission to pursue diagnosis and evaluation. One can often reach a diagnosis in 30 days, but not always. All psychiatric hospitals use a diagnostic and evaluation system, but they do not designate diagnosis and evaluation as a separate program. The average length of stay at Florida Medical Center's adolescent psychiatric unit is 64 days. The average length of stay at that unit if one takes out all patients who stay less than 30 days is 78.3 days. Nine of Florida Medical Center's 36 adolescent psychiatric patients have stayed longer than 90 days. Florida Medical Center has provided treatment of six months duration to a few of its adolescent psychiatric patients. As of the date of the hearing the total census of the Florida Medical Center psychiatric beds (adult and adolescent) was slightly less than 30 patients. As of the date of the hearing, Florida Medical Center had 8 adolescent psychiatric patients out of a capacity for 20. There has never been a waiting list for the adolescent psychiatric beds at Florida Medical Center. With regard to staffing, Florida Medical Center has 21 FTE's for its 20-bed adolescent psychiatric unit. It uses all registered nurses in its adolescent unit and has no LPN's. In the 12 month period preceding the hearing, the number of total patient days for all types of patients at Florida Medical Center has dropped 20 percent. The DRG system of reimbursement is causing a drop in patient days, which can be expected to result in excess bed capacity. The DRG system of reimbursement is not applicable to child and adolescent psychiatric services. The anticipated impact of DRG's on the delivery of psychiatric services is that DRG's will result in an excess of med/surg beds which will cause hospitals with those excess beds to try to convert them to something else, including psychiatric beds. Fort Lauderdale Hospital is a specialty psychiatric hospital and is licensed for 100 beds. It has the following programs: 18 beds -- intensive adult care (very short-term) 23 beds -- adolescent psychiatry 20 beds -- adolescent substance abuse 18 beds -- adult psychiatry (open) 16 beds -- adult substance abuse Presently Fort Lauderdale Hospital has only 95 beds set up. It could set up the other five within less than half a day if it had patients for them. For the period December 1, 1982, through November 30, 1983, the average length of stay in the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent psychiatric unit was 54 days. For the period December 1, 1983, through July 30, 1984, the average length of stay in the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent psychiatric unit was 48.6 days. For the period December 1, 1982, through November 30, 1983, the average length of stay in the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent substance abuse unit was 44.7 days. For the period December 1, 1983, through July 30, 1984, the average length of stay in the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent substance abuse unit was 45.1 days. For the 12 months ending November 30, 1983, the average length of stay for adolescent psychiatric patients who stayed 30 days or less was 13.28 days. For the 12 months ending November 30, 1983, the average length of stay for adolescent patients who stayed 31 days or longer was 74.17 days. Fort Lauderdale Hospital has some patients who stay longer than 90 days. The average daily census for the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent psychiatric unit is 12.5 patients (out of 23 available beds). The average daily census for the Fort Lauderdale Hospital adolescent substance abuse unit is 10.8 patients (out of 20 available beds). Fort Lauderdale Hospital offers all of the programs described in the Charter proposal. There is nothing unusual about those programs. Fort Lauderdale Hospital is very concerned about quality of care and provides high quality of care. Fort Lauderdale Hospital is involved in numerous community activities. It has community outreach programs and community educational programs. Fort Lauderdale Hospital has been trying continuously to have the public school system provide additional hours of school at the hospital, but the school system has failed to do so. Fort Lauderdale Hospital has an open medical staff. It has about 18 psychiatrists on the staff. If it had a closed medical staff limited to 4 or 5 psychiatrists it is reasonable to expect that psychiatric admissions would be reduced by 50 percent or more. Coral Ridge Hospital is licensed for 86 psychiatric beds. It is a long-term psychiatric treatment facility. Ninety- nine percent of the patients at Coral Ridge Hospital are chronic patients. At one time Coral Ridge Hospital was a short-term facility treating primarily acute patients, but it began turning into a long-term facility in 1977-78, and is now exclusively long-term. Coral Ridge Hospital has a 12-bed unit for children and adolescents. It also has a 24-bed substance abuse unit in which it can also place adolescents. The average length of stay of patients at Coral Ridge Hospital is well in excess of six months, perhaps as much as a year. Some patients at Coral Ridge Hospital stay as long as 18 months. As of the time of the hearing, there were three patients in the 12-bed child and adolescent unit at Coral Ridge Hospital. During the previous year Coral Ridge Hospital had had as many as 8 or 10 child and adolescent patients. As of the time of the hearing Coral Ridge Hospital had 44 beds filled out of a total of 86. Its average census during the previous 12 months was around 55 patients, or about 64 percent occupancy. Charges for room and board at Coral Ridge Hospital are about $195 per day. Total charges, which includes room and board, physician and therapy fees, tests, etc., range from about $6,000 to about $10,000 per month. Coral Ridge Hospital provides between 15 percent and 20 percent free services. Broward General Medical Center is a 744-bed acute care short-term hospital located in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. It has a psychiatric unit in which it treats patients 14 years of age and older. South Florida State Hospital in Broward County has a 50-bed children's unit and a 50-bed adolescent's unit. All of the services proposed by Charter are presently available in Broward County. There are an adequate number of existing beds available in the private sector for long-term psychiatric treatment in Broward County or close to Broward County. There is an existing good distribution of long-term inpatient psychiatric services along the southeast coast of Florida. Findings regarding the same or similar services in adjacent districts Grant Center Hospital is a 100-bed child and adolescent inpatient psychiatric hospital in Dade County which specializes in providing long-term care. Grant Center is within a two hour travel time from Broward County. A true long-term adolescent psychiatric program such as they have at Grant Center -- envisions stays of a minimum of six months, often closer to a year, and sometimes lasting as long as two years. The average length of stay at Grant Center is 290 days. The ages of patients at Grant Center range from 5 years old to 19 years old. Children up to 6 years of age make up a insignificant portion of Grant Center's patient population. Dade County is the primary service area for Grant Center. However, 12 percent of Grant Center patients come from Broward County and 6 percent of its patients come from Palm Beach County. During 1984 the occupancy level at Grant Center averaged 98 percent. The usual waiting list at Grant Center has been 5 to 12 patients. Grant Center has been granted a certificate of need to add 60 beds for long-term child and adolescent psychiatric services. Those 60 beds are under construction and will be on line by the end of 1985. The approved cost of those 60 beds was $1.7 million. The 60 new beds at Grant Center will occupy about 28,000 square feet. Every patient that comes to Grant Center receives intensive diagnosis and evaluation such as is proposed by Charter, but Grant Center does not call that a separate program. During 1984, 18 percent of Grant Center revenues were written off as either bad debt, free care, or charity cases. Highland Park is a 72-bed facility located in the center of Miami, Florida. Highland Park is owned by the same group that owns Grant Center. Highland Park has a 16-bed child and adolescent unit. It is common for children and adolescents to stay at Highland Park for over 90 days. Highland Park is within two hours travel time from Broward County. In 1983 there were 20 psychiatric beds at Biscayne Hospital with an occupancy rate of 63.9 percent. Biscayne Hospital is in north Dade County, within two hours travel time from Broward County. In 1983 there were 56 psychiatric beds at North Miami Hospital with an occupancy rate of 60.9 percent. North Miami Hospital is in north Dade County, within two hours travel time from Broward County. On February 28, 1984, a certificate of need was granted for 60 long- term adolescent psychiatric beds in Boca Raton. Boca Raton is within a two hour drive of Broward County. Psychiatric Institute of Delray was granted a certificate of need to add 15 long-term child and adolescent psychiatric beds. This is within a two hour drive of Broward County. National Medical Enterprises was granted a certificate of need to add 25 child and adolescent psychiatric beds. These beds are within a two hour drive from Broward County. Findings regarding other health care facilities and services In North Dade, South Palm Beach, and Broward County there are about 500 beds offering residential psychotherapeutic services for adolescents. Findings regarding manpower and accessibility Charter can reasonably expect to be able to secure the necessary health manpower to staff its facility at the proposed FTE level. With regard to geographic accessibility, the proposed Charter facility will be accessible to more than 90 percent of the residents of Broward County. With regard to financial accessibility, the $64,000 that Charter projects for charity care equates to three indigent patients for 60 days each per year. Findings regarding financial feasibility of the proposal Although Charter does not yet have a commitment for its proposed revenue bonds, given the financial assets of the parent company and its history of obtaining financing for other similar projects it would appear that the project is immediately financially feasible in the sense that Charter has or can obtain the financial wherewithal to pay for the cost of building the facility. The long-term financial feasibility of the project is quite another matter. For many of the reasons set forth below the long-term financial feasibility of the proposed facility looks rather bleak. Charter's pro formas and other projections for the future were prepared in large part by Mr. Follmer, but Mr. Follmer appears to have made a lot of unwarranted assumptions and guesses in the formulation of his estimates and projections. Mr. Follmer expressed confidence in the availability of private insurance to pay for a substantial amount of the services provided by the proposed facility, but Mr. Follmer has never seen a composite report showing the average psychiatric insurance coverage for adolescent patients in Broward County. In fact no more than 10 percent of the adolescent patients seen at Fort Lauderdale Hospital have private insurance coverage in excess of 90 days. Mr. Follmer projects that Charter will have occupancy at a rate of 55 percent during its first year of operation, 65 percent during its second year of operation, and 80 percent during its third year of operation. For reasons which are set forth at the end of these findings of fact, it must be concluded that these projections are totally unrealistic and without reliable factual foundation. Based on a number of factors, including specifically Charter's first year experiences with its other psychiatric hospitals, the recent experience of existing psychiatric hospitals in and near Broward County the fact that Charter will have closed medical staff, the fact that its medical staff is not presently operating in Broward County and has no established following of patients, and the fact that Charter has no agreements for the referral of psychiatric patients from general hospitals, an optimistic projection for its occupancy rate during the first year of operation would be in the range of 35 percent to 40 percent, and there is no reason to expect it would achieve better than 50 percent to 55 percent occupancy during its second year of operation. The estimate of 80 percent occupancy during the third year of operation is sheer speculation for which there is no competent substantial evidence and which is totally contraindicated by the experience of existing providers of the same or similar services. The foregoing regarding the occupancy that can realistically be expected by Charter takes into consideration only the adolescent aspect of Charter's proposed facility. When the 12-bed children's unit is taken into consideration, the reasonable occupancy expectations become bleaker yet. It is very uncommon to admit a child under 12 years of age for inpatient psychiatric hospital treatment. Families tend to resist recommendations that children under 12 be hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital. There is no measurable demand or need for long-term child psychiatric beds in Broward County. On the rare occasions when a child under 12 is hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital, most such hospitalizations are for very short periods, often only for a few days. Further, if a child under 12 must be hospitalized for psychiatric reasons it is usually better to hospitalize them in a psychiatric wing of a general hospital, due in large part to parental resistance to hospitalizing children under 12 in a psychiatric specialty hospital. Finally, South Florida State Hospital, which is an excellent facility, already has beds for children under 12. Another indicator that Charter's occupancy levels will be much lower than originally projected is that Charter's projected patient charges of $355 per day are substantially higher than the patient charges at some existing facilities providing similar services. These higher charges will have a negative impact on Charter's ability to compete effectively with existing providers of the same of similar services. Mr. Follmer's pro forma assumptions for the first year include the following: --6 percent for bad debt. --1.5 percent for indigent care. --2.5 percent contract adjustment for Baker Act. For the second year pro forma, Mr. Follmer assumes 5 percent for bad debt. These assumptions are totally unrealistic when compared to the experiences of existing providers in and near Broward County. The bad debt experience for the psychiatric unit at Florida Medical Center during the 18 months immediately preceding the hearing was approximately 16 percent of gross revenues. Coral Ridge Hospital provides between 15 percent and 20 percent free services. During 1984, 18 percent of Grant Center revenues were written off as either bed debt, free care, or charity cases. In light of these experiences, it is unrealistic for Charter to project 7.5 percent as its expected loss of revenue due to bad debts and indigent care. A much more reasonable (and still conservative) estimate would be in the range of 10 percent to 12 percent for bad debt and indigent care during its first few years of operation. Another negative impact on the revenue projections has to do with Baker Act patients. The proforma assumes that 5 percent of patient days will be made up of Baker Act patients and that the hospital will get paid approximately 50 percent of its usual charges -- thus the 2.5 percent "contract adjustment" for Baker Act patients in the pro forma. For the reasons which follow, the 2.5 percent "contract adjustment" should be a 5 percent "contract adjustment." Charter does not have any contracts for receiving any Baker Act funds ford its proposed Broward County facility. Baker Act funds are presently not available in Broward County for private psychiatric hospitals, and Mr. Follmer has no idea what the availability of Baker Act funds for Broward County will be in the future. Without any Baker Act funds there would be a loss in both of the first two years of operation per the pro forma. The Charter Glade facility had an agreement to take Baker Act patients, but never got any because the funding ran out. Findings regarding impact on existing providers If Charter's proposed facility is built, it will most likely reduce the patient census at Fort Lauderdale Hospital. A reduced census at Fort Lauderdale Hospital could require reductions in staff and programs, which would impair quality of care and could also threaten accreditation of the hospital. Florida Medical Center's existing facility is less than three miles from Charter's proposed location. It is reasonable to expect that Charter's facility would divert adolescent patients from Florida Medical Center's psychiatric unit with results similar to those described in the preceding paragraph. If Charter's proposed facility is built it is reasonable to expect that it would have a similar negative impact on other existing Broward County hospitals offering adolescent psychiatric services. Findings regarding costs and methods of construction All of Charter's proposed construction costs are reasonable estimates of the actual cost of construction. The costs proposed in this case are substantially the same as the costs which were incurred to construct Charter's Ft. Myers facility. The proposed cost of construction and site preparation of Charter's Broward County facility comes to $97 per square foot. The proposed construction cost of just the building comes to $81 per square foot. The equipment list in the Charter proposal and the amounts listed for the various items of equipment are reasonable for the type of facility Charter proposes for Broward County. Charter uses a prototype design for its psychiatric hospitals. About 8 or 9 of the prototype hospitals have been built. The Charter prototype design is the same design that is used by Charter for short-term hospitals. Charter's proposed floor plan looks like a plan for an acute care (short-term) facility. Findings regarding DHRS policies The geographic access standard for long-term psychiatric beds is that at least 90 percent of the population in the service district should be within a two hour one-way drive of existing services. In applying that travel standard the DHRS looks at services available in other districts within the two hour travel radius. The travel time standard for long-term psychiatric beds would be meaningless if applied literally because, given the size of the DHRS Districts, it would virtually always be met and would become, in essence, a nonstandard. The DHRS construction of the travel standard for long-term psychiatric beds is to consider the availability of services within a two-hour travel radius of the proposed facility. In other words, need for long-term psychiatric services in the district in which a new facility is proposed is determined in part by the availability of the same or similar services within a two-hour travel radius, regardless of whether that radius extends into other districts. A certificate of need for long-term psychiatric beds will not normally be granted if there are available underutilized beds within the two-hour travel radius, even if the available beds are in the next district. The DHRS has applied this interpretation of the travel time standard in other cases involving applications for long-term psychiatric beds. The reason DHRS crosses district boundaries in looking at need for long-term psychiatric beds is that long-term psychiatric care is a "regional" type of service. The DHRS also crosses district boundaries when looking at need for other "regional" types of services such as cardiac catherization and open heart surgery. In reviewing applications for certificates of need, the DHRS does not base its determination on a single statute or rule criterion. It uses a balancing process and considers all of the criteria in an effort to arrive at a reasonable judgment. The DHRS considers other evidence of need in addition to any indications of need found by strict application of the formulas. It is the policy at the DHRS not to do health planning on the basis of national statistics. This is because Florida's population differs in composition from the average of the national population. Florida has a large elderly population. It also has large population growth. The Florida population is less stable and more dynamic than the national population. DHRS tries to use local measures or statewide measures. Strong community support is not one of the statutory criteria for determining need for a health care facility. In determining bed need for psychiatric hospitals it is the policy of the DHRS not to consider the differences in medical opinion with regard to which of several approaches to the treatment of psychiatric patients may be the best form of medical treatment for psychiatric patients who require hospitalization. Findings required by subparagraph 1 of Sec. 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat. A less costly, more efficient, and more appropriate alternative would be to postpone the construction of any facilities such as those proposed by this applicant until such time as existing facilities offering the same or similar services have much higher occupancy rates. Findings required by subparagraph 2 of Sec. 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat. Existing inpatient facilities providing similar services are not being used in an efficient manner because they all are experiencing low utilization rates. Approval of Charter's proposed facility would cause use of existing facilities to become more inefficient. Findings required by subparagraph 3 of Sec. 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat. The best alternative to new construction at this time is no construction at this time, due to the underutilization of existing same or similar facilities. The best alternative in the future would appear to be to prefer conversion of underutilized med/surg beds if DRG-generated occupancy trends for those beds continue to cause those beds to be underutilized. Findings required by subparagraph 4 of Sec. 381.494(6)(d), Fla. Stat. Patients will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed, in the absence of the proposed new service. Existing facilities providing the sane or similar inpatient care are underutilized and have more than adequate unused capacity. Rejected proposed findings of fact I have rejected substantially all of Charter's proposed findings based on the testimony of the "community support" witnesses. This rejection is based largely on the fact that those findings are irrelevant to any determination of a need for the facilities proposed by Charter. Further, with but few exceptions, the "community support" witnesses appeared to be distinctly uninformed about either the details of the Charter proposal or details regarding the current availability of inpatient psychiatric services for children and adolescents in Broward County. Finally, most of the testimony of these witnesses relating to need for the proposed facility was contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Included within the appellation "community support" witnesses are: Marie Reynolds, Toni Siskin, Barbara Myrick, James Deleo, Sally Cresswell, Marjorie Miller, Susan Buza, Barbara Mitchell, Anne McKenzie, and Sharon Solomon. I have rejected substantially all of Charter's proposed findings based on the opinion testimony of Mr. Fred Follmer. Mr. Folmer's estimates and projections are totally lacking in credibility. As became most evident during the devastating cross-examination, Mr. Follmer did not have information he needed to make his projections, he ignored or overlooked information he did have, he relied on information about matters which are not analogous to the subject proposal, and some of his explanations of the basis for his projections are simply illogical. With regard to the issue of whether existing inpatient psychiatric programs for children and adolescents are similar to or different from the programs proposed by Charter, I have for the most part discounted the testimony of the Charter witnesses about the "uniqueness" of the Charter programs and have tended to credit the testimony of witnesses who are personally involved in the delivery of inpatient psychiatric services to children and adolescents in Broward County. This is due in large part to the fact that Charter's witnesses did not do a very extensive job of describing the nature of the programs it proposes to offer through Dr. Schwartz' group, and particularly did not come forward with any convincing evidence of the "uniqueness" of the proposed programs. I am persuaded by the testimony on behalf of the Petitioners and Intervenor that the proposed programs are not unique. I have not made any findings based on the testimony about Charter Barclay Hospital in Chicago because that testimony is lacking in relevancy in view of the testimony in the record about Charter Glade Hospital in Ft. Myers, Florida. To the extent of any differences in Charter's experiences operating a Chicago hospital and a Ft. Myers hospital, the latter is much more relevant to any expectations or projections regarding a Broward County hospital. For the following reasons, I have not made any findings regarding the need for Charter's proposed services based on the testimony of Dr. Luke. First, Dr. Luke's conclusions are irrelevant because they purport to measure need for services having an average length of stay of 120 days based on statistics regarding numbers of admissions lasting 91 days or more. The persuasive evidence is to the effect that the most likely average length of stay at Charter's proposed facility would be similar to the average length of stay of existing facilities treating acute adolescent patients -- a length of stay substantially less than 91 or 120 days. Second, Dr. Luke's conclusions were based on a number of assumptions which were either not shown to be valid or which were shown to be contrary to the persuasive evidence. Dr. Luke assumed an unrealistic average length of stay. Dr. Luke disregarded the manner in which the DHRS interprets and applies the travel-time standard in the applicable rule. Dr. Luke assumed the OGME admission rates are valid predictors for Broward County, but I am not convinced that they are, particularly in light of the DHRS policy of attempting to use local or statewide indicators rather than national indicators Dr. Luke assumed incorrectly that there are no long-term psychiatric beds in Broward County. Finally, Dr. Luke assumed incorrectly that the Charter proposal would provide a treatment program which is not presently available in Broward County. A major portion of the need analysis expert testimony in opposition to Dr. Luke was that of Mr. Konrad. While there are some areas of Mr. Konrad's testimony that are a bit problematic, I am persuaded on the whole that Mr. Konrad's opinions are better founded than those of Dr. Luke and have resolved most differences in their opinions in favor of the testimony of Mr. Konrad. As a final matter in this regard, it should be noted that there was an enormous amount of testimony which was the foundation for an enormous number of proposed findings that are "subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary." I have rejected all of those proposed findings because they are Immaterial and irrelevant to the disposition of the issues in this case.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying in its entirety Charter's application for a certificate of need for a 60-bed psychiatric hospital. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 16th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David Pingree Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Gilroy, Esquire Department of HRS 1321 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel and Hoffman Suite C 2700 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric B. Tilton, Esquire Post Office Box 5286 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Morgan L. Staines 2204 East Fourth Street Santa Ana, California 92705 Cynthia S. Tunnicliff, Esquire CARLTON, FIELDS, WARD, EMMANUEL, SMITH & CUTLER, P.A. O. Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Glen A. Reed, Esquire Richard L. Shackelford, Esquire BONDURANT, MILLER, HISHON & STEPHENSON 2200 First Atlanta Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30383 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 1986, a letter of intent was filed on behalf of Anthony J. Estevez to apply for a CON in the March 16, 1986, batching cycle for a 120-bed long-term psychiatric hospital in Dade County, Florida, HRS Service District XI. A long-term psychiatric hospital is defined in Rule 10-5.011(p), Florida Administrative Code, as a "category of services which provides hospital based inpatient services averaging a length of stay of 90 days." Subsequently, DHRS notified Mr. Estevez that his letter of intent was effective March 17, 1986; the application was to be filed by April 15, 1986; the application was to be completed by June 29, 1986; and the date for final department action was August 28, 1986. On April 15, 1986, Mr. Estevez filed his CON application with DHRS (designated action #4854). Anthony J. Estevez' name appeared along with Health Care Advisors Corporation on the line of the application which requested "legal name of project sponsor." Mr. Francis A. Gomez, Mr. Estevez' authorized representative, had the responsibility for the preparation and submission of the application. Mr. Estevez signed the CON application as the project sponsor. HCAC Psychiatric Hospital of Dade County was meant to be the name of the proposed facility. HCAC is an acronym for Health Care Advisors Corporation, Inc. HCAC was incorporated as of April 14, 1987, but the name had been reserved prior to that time. HCAC was initially intended to be a health care management corporation owned by Mr. Estevez. However, it is now anticipated that Flowers Management Corporation (Flowers) will manage the project under the HCAC corporate umbrella. Mr. Estevez owns 100 percent of the stock of HCAC and is also its sole director and sole shareholder. Mr. Estevez considered HCAC and himself to be one and the same for the purpose of the CON application. HCAC initially proposed to construct in Dade County, Florida, a freestanding 120-bed long-term psychiatric hospital. HCAC proposed to divide those beds into three groups: (1) 75 beds for adults; (2) 30 beds for geriatrics; and (3) 15 beds for adolescents. On May 15, 1986, DHRS requested additional information from HCAC regarding its CON application. On June 19, 1986, and June 23, 1986, HCAC in two separate filings provided DHRS with responses to its request for additional information which DHRS believed was omitted from the original application. The application was deemed complete effective June 29, 1986. On August 20, 1986, Francis Gomez, Paul McCall, a health care consultant employed by HCAC at that time, and HCAC's attorney, met with Islara Soto of DHRS regarding the CON application. At this meeting, HCAC advised DHRS of its intent to orient the facility programmatically to meet the needs of the Hispanic population of Dade and Monroe Counties. By letter dated August 29, 1986, DHRS notified Mr. Francis Gomez of its decision to deny CON application 4584. HCAC requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the denial. At the formal hearing, HCAC indicated a desire to abandon its proposal to provide 15 beds dedicated to serve adolescent patients and sought to introduce evidence relating to a down-sized 105-bed long-term psychiatric hospital serving only adult and geriatric patients. Charter renewed its prehearing motion to exclude any evidence concerning a 105-bed facility. (Approximately three or four weeks prior to the administrative hearing, HCAC had decided to go forward with a proposal for the 105-bed facility.) The undersigned ruled that HCAC would be allowed to present evidence concerning a down-sized 105-bed facility to the extent that such evidence related to a separate and identifiable portion of the original application. HCAC's Proposal The proposed building site for the facility, although not finally selected, is intended to be within the Northwest Dade Center cachement area which is in the northwest corner of Dade County. The ownership of the proposed facility will be by Mr. Estevez and/or his family or wife. The proposed area to be serviced by the facility is Dade and Monroe Counties (HRS Service District XI). HCAC proposes to offer at its facility a psychiatric inpatient unit, patient support services, diagnostic/treatment services, ambulatory care, administrative services, environmental/maintenance, educational and training services, and materials management. The HCAC facility will be managed by Flowers Management Corporation (Flowers), of which Mr. Estevez is a majority shareholder. Flowers was created approximately three and a half years ago for the purpose of providing management in the psychiatric field. Humana Hospital, a hospital chain, has selected Flowers to manage four of its facilities and is also considering Flowers for an additional two facilities. Those facilities are currently providing short-term psychiatric and substance abuse services. Nelson Rodney will be responsible for the design and implementation of the treatment programs in the HCAC facility. Rodney is employed as Regional Vice President of Flowers and is responsible for the management of the Florida hospitals affiliated with Flowers, including a chemical dependency unit at Humana-Biscayne Hospital and a psychiatric unit at Humana West Palm Beach Hospital. The HCAC facility is intended to provide specialty long-term psychiatric services for chronically mentally disturbed individuals requiring a 90-day or greater average length of stay. Many of the patients would be a danger to themselves and others and will require a very restrictive setting -- a locked facility. The programs proposed to be offered involve a range of inpatient diagnostic services, including an intensive diagnostic work-up done prior to admission for all patients. Each patient will have an individualized treatment plan updated every two weeks. The treatment program will include specialized therapy, such as art, music, milieu therapy and special education. There would also be specialized inpatient and outpatient treatment programs for family members and significant others. Discharge planning from the day of admission to assure continuity of care would be another aspect of the program. The proposed HCAC facility would offer a community-like atmosphere. It would provide both open and locked units. Flower's therapeutic model encourages patient participation in daily activities and in the many decisions of what is occurring at the hospital. One component of the project will be an initial screening process by a multi-disciplinary team who will employ a predetermined set of admissions criteria to assist in appropriate levels of care determination. The multi- disciplinary team would consist of a psychiatrist, psychologist, sometimes a neurologist, social worker, a family social assessment person, the patient, and others. The team will attempt to identify and admit only those patients who will have an expected length of stay greater than 90 days. The HCAC facility would provide seminars and workshops to practitioners in the community as well as its own staff. In-service training will also be offered. HCAC proposes to be flexible in the design of its treatment programs and allow new treatments to be utilized. A variety of therapies will be available to provide individualized treatment plans in order to optimize the chance of successful outcome in the patient's treatment. Currently, Flowers affords an in-house program of evaluation. Peer review serves this function in order to assess quality of care rendered to patients in the facility. The HCAC facility proposes to have an Hispanic emphasis. More than 50 percent of the staff will be bilingual. Upper management will consist of individuals who have an acute understanding of Hispanic culture and treatment implications of that culture. The facility will be more flexible in family visitation than is done in many facilities which is an important aspect of the Hispanic culture. The facility as managed by Flowers would have the required "patient's bill of rights" and will also seek JACH accreditation, although these items were not discussed in the application. The HCAC facility would offer each patient an attending psychiatrist who will be part of the multi-disciplinary team that will determine the individualized plan for each patient. Sufficient health manpower including management resources are available to HCAC to operate the project. Additionally, the facility will provide internships, field placements and semester rotations. PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS HCAC's CON application, admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4, contains 26 tables concerning various aspects of the 120-bed project as well as Exhibit III.D.1., an operating pro forma. In response to a request for omissions by DHRS, HCAC submitted, among other things, a revised Table 7, revised Table 8, and a revised operating pro forma for the 120-bed project. The items making up HCAC's omission responses were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. In conjunction with its desire to complete a 105-bed facility only, HCAC submitted various new tables and a new operating pro forma (forecasted income statement), which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Table 1 - Source of Funds The estimated total project cost of the 120-bed facility would be $6,469,500. The estimated project cost of the 105-bed facility would be $5,696,940. The financing of the project is contemplated to be done through NCNB bank which has expressed its willingness to finance the project. It is reasonable to assume that HCAC would and could obtain the necessary financing for the proposed facility. Table 2 - Total Debt Table 2 for both the 120-bed project and the 105-bed project shows that 100 percent of the project costs would be financed by debt at an interest rate of 13 percent. The 13 percent interest rate was projected in 1986 and is higher than current rates. It is reasonable to assume that 100 percent of the costs can be financed at 13 percent for either the 120-bed or 105-bed project. Table 3 - New Purchase Equipment HCAC initially projected that $750,000 would be needed to equip the proposed 120-bed facility. The projected expenditure for the 105-bed facility is $500,000. The projected costs of $750,000 and $500,000 for the equipment needed for the 120-bed and 105-bed facility, respectively, are unreasonably low. For example, of the $500,000 projected for equipment costs for the 105-bed project, $80,000 is for mini-vans, $15,000 is for the security system, $40,000 is for a computerized medical records system, and $40,000 for a computerized on-line nurse care program. This would leave $325,000 for all other necessary equipment. Pharmacy, laboratory services and x-ray equipment would be on contract. The remaining $325,000 would be insufficient to equip the kitchen (which would require $80,000), furnish patient rooms (approximately $150,000) and equip the remainder of the 105-bed facility which would reasonably require housekeeping equipment, exam room equipment, chart racks for the nurses station, seclusion room beds, office furniture and equipment, laundry equipment, lockers or shelving, refrigerators, ice makers, day room furniture and lounge furniture. A more reasonable projection for equipment costs would be in the neighborhood of $850,000 to $900,000. Table 7 - Utilization by Class of Pay Tables 7 and 8 of the original application which dealt with utilization by class of pay and effect on patient charges, were revised by HCAC in their responses to DHRS' Omissions Request. Table 7 reflects estimations of the net revenues which HCAC expects to capture from specific payor mixes, namely, contract/indigent, Medicare and insurance/private pay. There is no Medicaid reimbursement available for psychiatric care rendered in a freestanding psychiatric facility. The proposed payor mix for the 120-bed facility is, in patient days, as follows: Year 1 -- Contract/Indigent 8.64 percent (1989) Medicare 26.10 percent Insurance and Private Pay 65.26 percent Year 2 -- Contract/Indigent 8.48 percent (1990) Medicare 26.15 percent Insurance and Private Pay 65.37 percent The proposed payor mix for the 105-bed facility is, in patient days, as follows: Years 1 and 2 - Medicare 3.3 percent Insurance and Private Pay 90.7 percent Indigent 6.0 percent The change in payor mix was not attributed to down-sizing of the facility, but rather was the result of HCAC's additional research and understanding of what the payor mix would most likely be. The change in payor mix does not represent a substantial change to the original application taken as a whole. Francis Gomez, who prepared the Table 7 and was designated as an expert for HCAC in the area of health care facilities management and financial and marketing operations, conceded that HCAC's Table 7 for the 120-bed facility is not reasonable. The Table 7 for the 105-bed facility is also not reasonable. HCAC's contractual allowances are not reasonable. HCAC projects 3.3 percent for Medicare and nothing for HMOs or PPOs. It is unreasonable for HCAC's proposal to make no provision for HMO and PPO type arrangements in view of its projection of 90.7 percent insurance and private pay. Because the proposed patient mix for the 105-bed project is adults and geriatrics, 20 to 25 percent would be a more reasonable Medicare projection. HCAC's projected 90.7 percent insurance and private patient days is unreasonably high in view of the project's intended emphasis of serving the Hispanic population in HRS Service District XI. In 1980, 27.8 percent of the Hispanics in Dade County had incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty level. The 1987 United States Hispanic market study establishes that 20 percent of the Hispanic adults who are heads of households are either retired, students or unemployed. These groups of individuals would not reasonably fit into the insurance and private pay category in most cases. Thus, the 90.7 percent figure for insurance and private pay would have to be reduced significantly. Table 8 - Effects on Patient Charges HCAC's revised Table 8 for the 120-bed facility lists net revenues rather than gross charges for the specific services listed. In year one (1989), the table lists the following projected charges/rates: daily room charge - $214.61; average daily ancillary charge - $25.00; contract/indigent - $125.00; and Medicare - $229.61. In year two (1990), the table lists the following projected charges: daily room charge - $223.19; average daily ancillary charge - $26.00; contract/indigent - $130.00; and Medicare - $238.79. The Table 8 for the 105-bed facility reflects an all-inclusive gross charge of $300 per day in both years (1989 and 1990) for the daily room charge, Medicaid and Medicare. The $300 per day figure would include ancillary charges but not physician fees. The projected patient charges fall within the range of charges currently in effect at psychiatric hospitals in Dade and Monroe Counties and are reasonable for both the 120-bed facility and the 105-bed project. Table 10 - Projected Utilization The financial feasibility of any proposed hospital is largely tied to the ability of the hospital to generate an adequate level of utilization. Absent an adequate level of utilization, a facility will not generate sufficient revenues to meet expenses. Table 10 for both the 120-bed facility and the 105- bed facility sets forth the projected utilization of the proposed facility, by month and year, in patient days, for the first two years of anticipated operation. Table 10 for the 120-bed facility projects the facility will exceed 80 percent occupancy for two of the last three months of the second year and be at 80 percent occupancy at the end of that year. Eighty percent occupancy of 120 beds yields an average daily census of about 96 patients. Table 10 for the 105- bed facility projects that the facility will arrive at 92 percent occupancy at the end of the first year of operation and remain at 95 percent throughout the second year. Ninety-five percent occupancy of the 105-bed facility equals an average daily census of about 99 or 100 patients. The Table 10 "fill-up" rates for both the 120-bed and 105-bed facilities are unreasonable and not practical to be achieved. There is presently an emphasis on providing psychiatric care in less restrictive settings, a trend favoring reduced lengths of stay and a trend in third-party payors to provide reimbursement for a shorter number of days. In addition, nationwide statistics show that only 4 percent of the patients admitted to psychiatric facilities require treatment longer than 90 days. Table 11 - Manpower Requirements For the 120-bed facility, HCAC projected in the Table 11 a staffing ratio of one full-time equivalent (FTE) per occupied bed of 1.625 for the first year of operation and 1.43 for the second year. For the 105-bed facility, HCAC projected in the Table 11 1.91 FTE per occupied bed ratio for the first year and 1.45 for the second year. The actual average of FTEs available for both facilities would be 1.8 to 2.0. The application figures are lower than the actual average because students and other non-paid personnel were not included. Thus, when all programmatic FTEs are included, the number of FTEs per occupied bed is higher than what is listed in the Table 11 for either project. There is a relationship between the number and quality of staff personnel and a facility's ability to provide quality psychiatric care. The industry standard for FTEs is 1.8 to 2.0 FTEs per occupied bed. HCAC's proposed staffing for both the 120-bed and 105-bed projects are reasonable. For both proposed facilities, HCAC projects 110.5 FTEs for the first year with a total annual salary of $1,932,000 which equals an average salary of approximately $17,400 per FTE. HCAC's projected total annual salary expense is unreasonably low. Specifically, the salary for the occupational therapist is too low and the nursing salaries are too low because of shortages. Table 16 - Areas and Square Feet / Table 18 - Space Requirements HCAC proposes a total 59,603 square feet of gross area for the 120-bed facility and a total of 56,050 square feet of gross area for the 105-bed facility. The decrease in size for the 105-bed facility is attributed to a reduction of the ground floor, a reduction of the second floor by removing the adolescent portion and an increase of ancillary services on the second floor for the geriatric population. HCAC projects 168 feet of net living space in the patient's bedroom for both the 120-bed facility and the 105-bed facility. HCAC's proposal of total area and square feet requirements for both the 120-bed and 105-bed facility are reasonable for the delivery of quality psychiatric care within the proposed facilities. There would be adequate land space for parking at HCAC's facility to forego the necessity of constructing a parking garage. Table 19 - Nursing Unit Area Summary HCAC proposes a total of 34,479 square feet of gross area for the nursing unit in the 120-bed facility and the 105-bed facility. The square footage figures under Table 19 for both the 120-bed facility and 105-bed facility are reasonable. Table 25 - Estimated Project Costs Project Advisors Corporation (PAC), of which Mr. Estevez is the Chief Executive Officer, will be responsible for the design and construction of the proposed facility. PAC is a design and construction company which employs a registered architect, several licensed general contractors, an engineer, two graduate architects and a registered graduate architect. The registered architect and basically 90 percent of the staff have previously been involved in the design and construction of health related facilities. HCAC's projected total cost for the 120-bed facility is $6,469,500 and the projected total costs for the 105-bed facility is $5,696,940. HCAC projected construction costs per square foot of $57.55 for the 120-bed facility and $60.00 per square foot for the 105-bed facility. Although the average construction cost of psychiatric facilities today is around $75 to $95 per square foot, HCAC's projected costs are reasonable and reflect reasonable charges given the fact that PAC, the company which would construct the facility, is controlled by Mr. Estevez. The projected costs of land acquisition are also reasonable. HCAC's projected equipment costs are contained in both Table 25 and Table 2. As previously discussed, the projected equipment costs for both projects are unreasonably low. Table 26 - Project Completion Forecast HCAC projects that construction for both the 120-bed facility and 105- bed facility would be completed approximately one year after DHRS' approval of the construction documents. The project completion forecasts for both projects are reasonable. Exhibit III.D.1.- Operating Pro Forma/Forecasted Income Statement Revised Exhibit III.D.1 sets forth the operating pro forma for the first two years of operation of the 120-bed facility (1989 and 1990). HCAC's pro forma for its 120-bed facility is not reasonable. The supplies and other expenses depicted in the pro forma (year one at $55.60 per patient day and year two at $58.10 per patient day) are unreasonably low. A more reasonable estimate would be approximately $100 per patient day. The pro forma for the 120-bed facility does not include any estimate for the Hospital Cost Containment Board (HCCB) tax. Similar facilities in Florida pay an HCCB tax which is composed of one and a half percent of net revenue. Utilizing the more reasonable estimate of $100 per patient day for supplies and other expenses, and including the appropriate HCCB tax, the total supplies and other expenses would increase approximately $1,100,000 and the HCCB tax would be approximately $85,000 in year one. Instead of showing a profit of $395,012, HCAC would potentially lose approximately $785,000 in that year. In year two, the total supplies and other expenses would increase approximately $1,400,000 and the HCCB tax would be approximately $115,000 to $117,000. Thus, in year two, instead of showing a profit of $919,036, HCAC would potentially lose approximately $617, 000. HCAC's "forecasted income statement" for the 105-bed project is also not reasonable. Specifically, the contractual allowances, the allowance for bad debt, and the salaries, wages and fringe benefits are unreasonable. Contractuals include such things as Medicare, Medicaid, HMOs and PPOs, which all generate discounts which are considered contractual allowances. HCAC estimates its bad debt factor at 1.6 percent. A more reasonable projection would be 6 to 8 percent of gross revenue. CONSISTENCY WITH THE DISTRICT XI HEALTH PLAN AND STATE MENTAL HEALTH PLAN The District XI local health council has produced the 1986 District XI Health Plan. The district plan contains the relevant policies, priorities, criteria and standards for evaluation of an application such as HCAC's. HCAC's application is consistent with some of the applicable sections of the District XI Health Plan but inconsistent with the plan taken as a whole. Policy No. 1 of the District XI health plan states that the district should direct its efforts toward a licensed bed capacity of 5.5 non-federal beds per thousand population ratio by 1989. Presently there are 11,294 beds in District XI which represents a number in excess of 5.5 non-federal beds. HCAC's application is inconsistent with this policy. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 1, states that proposals for the construction of new beds in the district should be considered only when the overall average occupancy of licensed beds exceeds 80 percent. Priority No. 1 refers to certain types of beds, specifically, acute care general beds, short- term psychiatric beds and substance abuse beds. HCAC's application is not inconsistent with this priority because long-term psychiatric beds are not mentioned. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 2 favors the encouragement of projects that meet specific district service needs through the conversion of existing beds from currently underutilized services. Because HCAC is not the operator of an existing hospital and it is not possible for HCAC to convert any beds from other services, HCAC's application is inconsistent with Policy No. 1, Priority No. 2. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 3 would only be relevant in the case of an existing hospital but not in the case of a new hospital where no comparative hearing is involved. HCAC's application is not inconsistent with Policy No. 1, Priority No. 3. Policy No. 1, Priority No. 4 allows for priority consideration for the initiation of new services for projects which have had an average occupancy rate of 80 percent for the last two years and which have a documented history of providing services to Medicaid and/or other medically indigent patients. HCAC's application is not entitled to priority consideration under Policy No. 1, Priority No. 4. Policy No. 2 is a broad policy which provides that service alternatives should be available within the district to meet the needs of community residents, while at the same time maintaining an efficient level of utilization. This policy is necessarily tied to the demonstration of overall need for the facility. If HCAC can show need for the proposed facility, its proposal would be consistent with this policy. Policy No. 2, Priority No. 1(f) (Psychiatric Bed Services) provides for priority consideration to be given to specific institutions which have achieved an 80 percent occupancy rate for the preceding year. HCAC's application is not entitled to priority consideration under Policy No. 2, Priority No. 1(f). Policy No. 2, Policy No. 3(f) states that a CON applicant should propose to provide the scope of services consistent with the level of care proposed in the application in accordance with appropriate accrediting agency standards. In the case of psychiatric bed services the appropriate accrediting agency is the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH). Although HCAC neglected to address its ability to comply with JCAH standards in its application, it has established its intent to seek JCAH accreditation. HCAC's proposal is consistent with Policy No. 2, Priority No. 3(f). Policy No. 2, Priority No. 4 gives a preference to those applicants that propose innovative mechanisms such as various complimenting outpatient and inpatient services which are directed toward an ultimate reduction in dependency upon hospital beds. HCAC does not meet this priority because it has not proposed any mechanisms to complement outpatient services with inpatient services directed toward an ultimate reduction in the dependency on hospital beds. Policy No. 2, Priority No. 5 gives a preference to applicants who have based their project on a valid marketing research effort and have placed it in the context of a long-range plan. HCAC does not meet this priority because there was no evidence that the project was based on a valid marketing research plan or placed in the context of a long-range plan. Policy No. 2f Priority No. 6 states that existing facilities as well as applicants for new services should demonstrate a willingness to enter into cooperative planning efforts directed at establishing a system whereby duplication of specialized services is avoided while quality of such services is enhanced. HCAC presented no documentation of transfer agreements with other hospitals and did not substantiate its willingness to enter into cooperative planning efforts with letters of intent, referral agreements or memoranda of understanding. Policy No. 3 provides that services in the community should be made available to all segments of the resident population regardless of the ability to pay. HCAC's proposal is consistent with this policy because a provision for services to indigent patients has been made. Policy No. 3, Priority No. 1 provides that priority should be given to applications proposing services and facilities designed to include Medicaid (Baker Act) patients to the greatest extent possible based on documented history or proposed services. Although Medicaid does not reimburse for freestanding psychiatric services, and Baker Act is only available to short-stay facilities specifically chosen to receive a Baker Act contract, HCAC has not designed its project to include those patients to the greatest extent possible. Thus, HCAC's application is not consistent with Policy No. 3, Priority No. 1. Goal I of the 1986 District XI Goals and Policies for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services is applicable to HCAC's application. This goal favors mental health services in the least restrictive setting possible. Long- term institutional care may be the least restrictive setting possible in the continuum of mental health care for the treatment of certain more serious types of patients. The concept of "continuum of care" means the full breadth of services available within a community, from least restrictive to most restrictive, from least intensive to most intensive. There must be settings along the full continuum of psychiatric care for patients to receive the level of care they may need. HCAC's application is not inconsistent with Goal I. Issues Relating to CON Recommendations and Priority for Inpatient Psychiatric Services (District XI Health Plan 1986, page 26). In this section of the district health plan, the Planning Advisory Committee states its recommendations and preferences for services for the comprehensive treatment of the mentally ill. The Committee recognizes that long-term hospitalization is a viable form of treatment for some mentally ill patients. However, the Committee expresses a preference for short hospital stays and applicants that project treatment modalities with an average length of stay under 20 days. In addition, the Committee emphasizes a preference for services to be obtained through the conversion of medical/surgical beds, because the district has a large surplus of such beds. Overall, HCAC's project is not consistent with the recommendations and priorities of the Planning Advisory Committee. HCAC's proposal is inconsistent with the goals, objectives and recommendations of the State Health Plan taken as a whole. The State Health Plan contains an important and significant goal that no additional long-term hospital psychiatric beds should be added in the area until the existing and approved beds in the district have achieved an 80 percent occupancy level. The existing long-term hospital psychiatric beds in the district have an occupancy level at approximately 67 percent. AVAILABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF ALTERNATIVES There are available, accessible and appropriate facilities within the service district which can be utilized for the services proposed by HCAC that are presently underutilized. Currently, there are short-term psychiatric providers, a long-term provider, residential facilities, nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities that are available as alternatives in the service district, and in many cases are significantly underutilized. Although the services to be offered by the HCAC facility would be in excess of what is provided in an adult residential treatment facility, nursing home or adult congregate living facility, those facilities could serve as viable alternatives in appropriate cases. In 1986, there were 6,513 existing nursing home beds in District XI and an additional 1,928 approved for opening. There are 24 adult congregate living facilities in District XI with 50 beds or more. The total number of beds for ACLFs in 1986 was 2,620. In addition, Grant Center Hospital has 140 existing and 20 approved long-term psychiatric beds; its occupancy rate is low. THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE QUALITY OF CARE AND THE APPLICANT'S RECORD OF PROVIDING QUALITY OF CARE The "Flowers Model," made a part of the application, is a description of how, from a clinical perspective, the proposal will be managed. Although Flowers does not presently operate any long-term psychiatric facilities, the Flowers Model is appropriate for a long-term psychiatric care facility. From a clinical and programmatic perspective, the HCAC facility would provide good quality of care. PROBABLE ECONOMIES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN SERVICE WHICH MAY BE DERIVED FROM OPERATION OF JOINT, COOPERATIVE OR SHARED HEALTH CARE RESOURCES HCAC has not demonstrated that there will be any improvements in service which may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative or shared health care resources. The Northwest Dade County proposed location of the HCAC facility would place the project within two hours travel of 90 percent or more of District XI population. Nevertheless, HCAC's facility would increase the number of people who would be within two hours of long-term adult psychiatric facilities by less than 1 percent. The patients in District XI will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient care of the type proposed in the absence of the service proposed by HCAC. There is presently adequate and accessible long-term hospital inpatient services for District XI population based on the existing and approved facilities in District X (Southwinds Hospital, Florida Medical Center) and District XI (Grant Center). There are two approved but not yet open long-term psychiatric facilities in District X, Broward County. Florida Medical Center holds a CON for 60 long-term adult psychiatric beds to be located in Lauderdale Lakes and Southwinds Hospital holds a 75-bed CON with 60 beds counted for long-term treatment of adult and geriatric patients to be located in Andy Town. In addition, there are 238 long-term state hospital beds at South Florida State Hospital in Broward County. Although the need for long-term psychiatric beds is assessed on a district-wide basis, it is reasonable to consider psychiatric beds in Broward County (District X) as an alternative to HCAC's proposal because they are within two hours access of individuals within the two counties. Likewise, it is reasonable to consider approved beds because need is projected for a future date. Not counting approved beds would overestimate need and result in duplication of services. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY HCAC has not demonstrated that the 120-bed project or the 105-bed facility is financially feasible in the short or the long term. The projection of revenues and expenses in the pro forma (120-bed project) and the forecasted income statement (105-bed project) were flawed to such an extent that financial feasibility of the project was not shown. IMPACT ON COSTS AND COMPETITION If HCAC's project were to be built, a likely result is increased charges for the provision of services in the area. HCAC's proposed facility would negatively impact the availability of psychiatric nurses. There is a shortage of psychiatric nurses in Dade County and it is difficult to recruit and hire R.N.s with psychiatric experience. In order to hire nurses in a time of shortage, hospitals must recruit staff from other facilities. Shortages can increase the cost of recruitment and the cost of salaries. Charter is a hospital located in District XI and consists of 88 beds, 80 of which are licensed as short-term psychiatric beds and eight of which are licensed as short-term substance abuse beds. Short-term psychiatric inpatient care is defined in Rule 10-5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code, as "a service not exceeding three months and averaging a length of stay of 30 days or less for adults." HCAC's proposed facility, if approved, would have a negative economic impact on Charter. It is very likely that many of the patients at the proposed HCAC facility would experience lengths of stay between 45 and 60 days. Charter treats a significant number of patients (approximately 15 percent) who stay longer than 30 days. Because of the difficulty of initially identifying patients who would require either short or long-term stays, many of Charter's patients could be lost to the HCAC project. Charter could suffer a loss of up to 657 patient days per year if HCAC's proposed facility is approved. This loss of patients would impair Charter's ability to have certain types of programs, equipment and staff. PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO MEDICAID PATIENTS AND THE MEDICALLY INDIGENT HCAC's project does not propose a significant amount of indigent care and HCAC has no history of providing health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. OCCUPANCY RATE FOR EXISTING LONG-TERM HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRIC BEDS Grant Center Hospital is the only existing long-term psychiatric facility in District XI. It has 140 beds and specializes in treating children and adolescent patients. Its occupancy rate at the time of review for the preceding year was approximately 67 percent. The appropriate period to calculate occupancy rate of existing facilities in this case is July 1985 to July 1986 because this is the most recent 12-month period preceding application decision. The occupancy rate of all psychiatric beds within District XI was below 80 percent. HCAC'S PROPOSED NEED METHODOLOGY At the hearing, W. Eugene Nelson testified on behalf of HCAC on the need for the proposed long-term adult psychiatric beds. Mr. Nelson was accepted as an expert in the field of health care planning, including psychiatric bed need assessment. Mr. Nelson performed his analysis in District XI using the Graduate Medical Educational National Advisory Committee (GMENAC) methodology. The need methodology proposed by HCAC is inappropriate to adequately and accurately predict need for long-term adult psychiatric beds in District XI. The GMENAC study is a national study based on national data developed to determine physician requirements in 1990 for 23 medical specialities. GMENAC estimates the prevalence of certain psychiatric disorders among the general population and estimates the number of those persons who need care for their conditions in differing treatment settings ranging from outpatient services to 24-hour institutional care. HCAC's methodology, utilizing the GMENAC study, predicted a gross need of 895 beds in District XI in the applicable horizon (July 1991). The total number of existing long-term psychiatric beds in the entire State of Florida is only 836 beds, and the majority of those beds are experiencing occupancy levels under 65 percent. Many of these long-term facilities have been around for a period of at least three years and are still experiencing low occupancy. Therefore, the low levels are probably not based on the fact that the facilities are in a start-up mode. HCAC's bed need computation is as follows: Adult Long Term Psychiatric Bed Requirements (Excludes Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Mental Retardation, Organic Brain Syndrome and "other" Conditions) District XI: July 1991 Condition Admission Rate Schizophrenia & Other Psychoses 99 Affective Disorder Psychosis 20 Affective Disorder Neuroses 60 Neuroses and Personality Disorders 199 20 Projected 1991 Population Age 18+ 1,459,437 Total Projected Admissions 2,904 Average Length of Stay 90 Projected Patient Days Target Occupancy 80.00 261,385 percent Total Beds Required 895 Beds Currently Available 438 South Florida State Hospital (450 X .48) Residential Treatment Facilities 216 233 Net Beds Needed 496 The projected 1991 population for District XI for age 18 and above is 1,459,473. The population projections were received from the Office of the Governor. The anticipated admissions per 100,000 is calculated to be 199 for the conditions listed. The total projected admissions for 1991 is 2,904. The 2,904 projected long-term care admissions when multiplied by the average length of stay of 90 days generates 261,385 projected patient days in the 1991 horizon period in District XI. The 261,385 patient days is then divided by 365 days in the year, and then by 80 percent, the latter of which is contained in the rule as the optimum or desired occupancy for long-term psychiatric beds. This yields a total gross long-term psychiatric bed requirement for adults and geriatrics of 895 beds. In performing his analysis, Mr. Nelson used Table 4, page 22 of the GMENAC Study which lists information for mental disorders requiring care by treatment setting. The prevalence rate of 199 admissions per 100,000 population was based on the study's projection of the mental disorders listed requiring a "24-hour" treatment setting. Nelson used a projected 90-day length of stay in his computations. There is nothing in the GMENAC document that sets forth the average length of stay of persons reflected in the 24-hour column. Therefore, it is misleading to assume that persons admitted subject to the 199 per 100,000 admissions rate will actually experience an average length of stay as long as 90 days. For HCAC's admission rate to be valid, all of the facilities in District XI would have to average a 90-day length of stay. This is an unreasonable assumption. Nationwide, only a small percentage of all psychiatric admissions experience a length of stay as long as 90 days. In computing beds currently available in District XI, Mr. Nelson did not consider nursing home beds, adult congregate living facility beds, or the 135 long-term psychiatric beds that have been approved for two facilities in District X (Broward County). Nelson also did not consider whether short-term facilities were capable or willing to take additional patients for long-term treatment. Thus, the computation of beds currently available in the HCAC methodology is unreasonably low. HCAC's need methodology generated a long-term psychiatric bed to population ratio of .61 per thousand. DHRS' rule for short-term psychiatric beds was a population ratio of .35 per thousand. Short-term care facilities have admission rates two to three times greater than long-term facilities and nationwide statistics establish that only 4 percent of all psychiatric patients stay longer than 90 days. It is not reasonable for the bed rate for long-term adult psychiatric beds to be higher than the rate for short-term psychiatric beds. Mr. Nelson excluded organic brain syndrome diagnosis from his analysis and admission rate based on an assumption that many of those patients are in nursing homes. Nelson did not use nursing home beds in computing his need methodology because he believed that eliminating the organic brain syndrome category from the Table 4, page 22, 24-hour column in the GMENAC study eliminates the need for considering nursing home beds in the inventory. For that approach to be valid, the number of organic brain syndrome patients that go to long-term psychiatric facilities would need to cancel out the number of patients in other diagnostic categories who go to nursing homes. Nelson did not consult or review any data concerning the number or percentage rates of schizophrenics and other mentally ill patients in nursing homes or the number of organic brain syndrome people being treated in long-term psychiatric facilities. In addition, Nelson did not know what percentage, if any, of the GMENAC projected admissions were nursing home admissions. In computing existing beds, Nelson listed two types of facilities previously existing in District XI which were applicable to his methodology: the state hospital (216 beds) and residential treatment facilities (233 beds). The correct number of beds available for adults from District XI in the state hospital is 238. The actual number of beds for residential facilities is 335. Dr. Howard Fagin testified as an expert in health planning and feasibility analysis, including psychiatric bed need assessment and feasibility. In Dr. Fagin's opinion, Nelson's bed need methodology is incorrect and the conclusions drawn are wrong because Nelson used an inappropriate length of stay based on the GMENAC study and also incorrectly identified the applicable beds which should be considered for comparable facilities under the GMENAC study and, therefore, his total numbers in terms of gross and net beds needed are incorrect. Dr. Fagin's critique of Mr. Nelson's bed need methodology is persuasive and credible. HCAC has failed to show that its proposed need methodology could accurately project the need for long-term psychiatric beds in District XI.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that CON Application No. 4854 by Health Care Advisors Corporation, Inc. be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Lesley Mendelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Fort Knox Executive Center 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 308 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 H. Darrell White, Esquire Gerald B. Sternstein, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William E. Hoffman, Esquire 2500 Trust Company Tower 25 Park Place Atlanta, Georgia 30303 George N. Neros, Jr., Esquire 101 North Monroe Street Monroe-Park Tower Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire The Perkins House Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
