Conclusions Having reviewed the administrative complaint dated August 17, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 2) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Filed February 12, 2010 12:46 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Upon full execution of this Agreement, the parties agree to the following: The administrative complaint is deemed superseded by this Settlement Agreement. The Petitioner's request for a formal administrative hearing is withdrawn. Respondent will pay a fine of $500.00 for violating Rule 59A-8.003(10)(c), Florida Administrative Code. This fine is due and payable within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Final Order. A check should be made payable to the "Agency for Health Care Administration." The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS # 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Unpaid amounts pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. Respondent's petition for a formal administrative proceeding is hereby dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this _!}_day of , 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. I Ith Care Administratio A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Lawrence R. Metsch, Esq. The Metsch Law Firm, P.A. 20801 Biscayne Blvd. Suite 307 Aventura, Florida 33180 (U. S. Mail) Lourdes A. Naranjo, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 8350 N. W. 52 Terrace - Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33166 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Patricia M. Hart Agency for Health Care Administrative Law Judge Administration Division of Administrative Hearing 2727 Mahan Drive, MS # 14 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (Interoffice Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the ay of rCLa.r Y" , 2010. 7 Richard J. Shoop Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 922-5873
The Issue The issues involved in this case, as stipulated to by the parties, are as follows: Issues Remaining to Be Litigated Again, because of their inability to separate the purely factual issues from those which also involve legal determinations, the parties have combined below all issues which remain to be litigated. 1A. Was it proper for DHRS to compute the formula for need contained in FACs 10- 5.11(25)(a)1-3 on a subdistrict basis? 1B. Even if the answer is "yes", did DHRS properly use the result of such a computation as a reason for denying Charter- Ocala's application in this case? 2A. Was it proper for DHRS to take into account both existing and approved beds in computing the occupancy standard formula contained in FACs 10-5.11(25)(d) 5? 2B. Even if the answer is "yes," did DHRS properly use the results of such a computation as a reason for denying Charter- Ocala's application in this case? Does the level of Charter-Ocala's indigent care commitment cause its application not to fully meet the requirement in subsection 8 of Fla. Stat. s 381.494(6)(c) that the proposed services "be accessible to all residents of the service district"? Is the proposed project financially feasible in the long term? Will the proposed project result in an increase in health care costs? In light of all factors, should Charter-Ocala's application be granted?
Findings Of Fact GENERAL Procedural. On or about October 15, 1985, the Petitioner filed an application for a certificate of need with the Respondent. On or about December 26, 1985, the Petitioner filed amendments to its application. On or about February 27, 1986, the Respondent issued a State Agency Action Report proposing to deny the Petitioner's application. On March 27, 1986, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Respondent. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned case number 86-1466. On November 12, 1986, the parties filed a Prehearing Stipulation in which they agreed to certain facts and conclusions of law. The facts agreed upon by the parties are hereby adopted as findings of fact. The Parties. The Petitioner is a free-standing 68-bed short-term psychiatric and substance abuse specialty hospital located in Ocala, Florida. The 68 beds consist of 48 short-term psychiatric beds and 20 substance abuse beds. The Petitioner began operating on October 17, 1985. The Respondent is the agency responsible for determining whether the Petitioner's proposal should be approved. The Petitioner's Proposal. In its application, the Petitioner has proposed an expansion of its existing 48 short-term psychiatric beds by 24 beds. The Petitioner proposed that the 24 additional beds consist of 10 beds in a geriatric psychiatric unit and 14 beds in an adult psychiatric unit. The total proposed cost of the additional beds was $1,491,850.00. The Petitioner amended the total proposed cost to $1,213,880.00 on December 26, 1985. At the final hearing, the Petitioner represented that it will operate an adult eating disorder program in the new 14-bed psychiatric unit. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM PSYCHIATRIC BEDS. A. General. The Petitioner's existing facility for which additional beds are sought is located in Ocala, Marion County, Florida. Marion County is located in the Respondent's planning district 3. District 3 consists of Alachua, Bradford, Citrus, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Hernando, Lafayette, Lake, Levy, Marion, Putnam, Sumter, Suwannee and Union Counties. The existing providers of short-term psychiatric services in district 3 in addition to the Petitioner consist of Alachua General Hospital, Shands Teaching Hospital, Lake City Medical Center, Munroe Regional Medical Center and Lake Sumter County Mental Health Clinic. The District III Health Plan divides the district into 2 subdistricts: southern and northern. The southern subdistrict includes Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Marion and Sumter Counties. The northern subdistrict consists of Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Putnam, Suwannee and Union Counties. Marion County is located in the northern portion of the southern subdistrict. Ocala, which is located in the northern portion of Marion County is approximately 20 miles from the border of the subdistricts. B. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(o), Florida Administrative Code. The projected population of district 3 in 1990 is 972,450. Based upon the projected population of district 3 in 1990, there is a gross need for 340 short-term psychiatric beds for district 3 in the relevant planning horizon year 1990. There are 316 licensed and approved short-term psychiatric beds for district 3. There is a net need for 24 short-term psychiatric beds for district 3 in 1990. Of the 316 licensed and approved short-term psychiatric beds located or to be located in district 3, 149 are located in hospitals holding a general license and 167 are located in specialty hospitals. Multiplying the projected 1990 district 3 population by a ratio of .15 beds per 1,000 population indicates a gross need for 146 short-term psychiatric beds in hospitals holding a general license. There will be a net surplus of three beds located in hospitals holding a general license in 1990 (146 beds needed less 149 licensed and approved beds). Multiplying the projected 1990 district 3 population by a ratio of .20 beds per 1,000 population indicates a gross need for 194 short-term psychiatric beds which may be located in specialty hospitals. There will be a net need of 27 beds which may be located in specialty hospitals (194 beds needed less 167 licensed and approved beds). The approval of the Petitioner's proposal will not create an imbalance between specialty beds and general beds in district 3 for 1990. There is sufficient need for additional beds in district 3 for approval of the Petitioner's proposal. Occupancy. Objective 1.2 of the State Health Plan provides: dditional short-term inpatient hospital psychiatric beds should not normally be approved unless the average annual occupancy rate for all existing and approved adult short-term inpatient psychiatric beds in the service district is at least 75 percent ... [Emphasis added]. The occupancy rates in 1985 for the existing short-term psychiatric beds in district 3 were as follows: Facility Beds Occupancy Alachua General Hospital 30 77.5 percent Shands Teaching Hospital 42 77.8 percent Lake City Medical Center 9 69.2 percent Munroe Regional Medical Center 18 56.4 percent Lake/Sumter County Mental Health 18 88.0 percent. The average occupancy rate for the existing facilities listed in finding of fact 27 is 75.5 percent. There are 151 short-term psychiatric beds approved for district 3 which are not yet operational. The occupancy rate of the existing and approved beds of district 3 is less than 75 percent. The approved beds should be assumed to have a 0 percent occupancy since they are not in use. Planning Guideline 2 of the District III Health Plan provides: Additional inpatient psychiatric services should not be developed until existing or approved services reach the occupancy standards Specified in the State Inpatient Psychiatric ... Rule. The occupancy standard Specified in the State Inpatient Psychiatric Rule is 75 percent. It is reasonable to expect that approved beds will affect existing occupancy rates when the beds become operational. Consumer demand for short-term psychiatric beds cannot expand indefinitely to meet supply. Since 48 percent of the licensed and approved beds for district 3 are approved beds, it does not make sense to ignore approved beds. Applying the occupancy standard on a subdistrict basis, licensed beds in the southern subdistrict had an average occupancy rate of 72.2 percent for 1985 (excluding the Petitioner's existing beds). If the 51 approved beds at Community Care of Citrus, 35 approved beds in Hernando County and the 15 approved beds at Lake/Sumter Mental Health are taken into account, the occupancy rate is Substantially lower. The Petitioner's proposal does not meet the occupancy standards of the state health plan or the district health plan (on a district or subdistrict basis). Subdistrict Allocation of Bed Need. Planning Guideline 4 of the District III Health Plan provides: Needed inpatient psychiatric ... beds will be allocated within the District based on the proportion of need generated in each planning area using the State methodology. The northern and southern subdistricts are the appropriate planning areas under the district health plan. The projected population for the southern subdistrict for 1990 is 549,536. Applying the state methodology to the southern subdistrict, there will be a gross need for 192 short-term psychiatric beds in 1990. Subtracting the 84 licensed and 101 approved beds yields a net need for 7 short-term psychiatric beds for the southern subdistrict for 1990. Of the 192 gross beds needed for the southern subdistrict in 1990, 82 should be located in hospitals holding a general license and 110 may be located in specialty hospitals. There are 66 licensed and 101 approved beds located or to be located in specialty hospitals in the southern subdistrict. Therefore, under the district health plan, there will be a surplus of 57 short-term psychiatric beds located in specialty hospitals in the southern subdistrict in 1990. All existing and approved short-term psychiatric specialty hospitals for district 3 are or will be located in the southern subdistrict; there are no specialty hospitals located or approved for the northern subdistrict. The Petitioner is the closest specialty hospital to the northern district. There is insufficient need for the Petitioner's proposal in the southern subdistrict of district 3 under the district health plan. Until December, 1985, or early 1986, the Respondent's policy and practice was to apply the need formula of Rule 10-5.11(25)(d), Florida Administrative Code, on a district-wide basis, not on a subdistrict basis. In approximately December, 1985, or early 1986, the Respondent implemented a new policy of reviewing the need for proposed short-term psychiatric services on a subdistrict basis in the applicable district health plan recognized subdistricts. This new policy was based upon a new interpretation of existing statutes and rules. Specifically, the Respondent relied upon Rule 10-5.011(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 381.494(6)(c)1, Florida Statutes, which direct an evaluation of the relationship between proposed services and the applicable district health plan in reviewing certificate of need applications. The evidence failed to prove: (a,) when the policy was formulated; (b) who was responsible for the formulation and implementation of the policy; and (c) whether any sort of investigation, study or analysis was performed or relied upon in connection with the policy. The effect of this policy can be outcome-determinative in that it can cause an application for a certificate of need to be denied. Prior to the adoption of the policy, the Respondent Promulgated Rule 10-17, Florida Administrative Code, which Provided for sudistricting of district This rule was repealed. Geographic Access. A small portion of the population of district 3 is within a maximum travel time of 45 minutes from the Petitioner's facility. Only 36 percent of the district 3 population is within 45 minutes driving time from the Petitioner's facility. The Petitioner's facility is located near the center of district 3. Approximately 60 percent of the population of district 3 is located within 60 minutes travel time from Ocala. There are excellent transportation routes from parts of the northern subdistrict to Ocala, including Interstate Highway 75 and U.S Highways 27, 301 and 441. Approximately 73 percent of the Petitioner's Patients during its first year of operation came from the southern subdistrict. Of those Patients, approximately 58 percent were from Marion County and 15 percent were from other southern subdistrict counties, including 10.5 percent from Citrus County and none from Hernando County. Approximately 15 percent of the Petitioner's patients during its first year of operation came from the northern subdistrict: 8 percent from Alachua County, 1.7 percent from Putnam, 1.2 percent from Bradford, .2 percent from Union, Suwannee and Gilchrist, .7 percent from Columbia and none from Hamilton, Lafayette, and Dixie. Approximately 12 percent of the Petitioner's patients during its first year of operation came from outside of district 3. Other Factors Approximately 16 percent to 17 percent of Marion County's population was 65 years of age or older in 1980. By 1990, the 65 and older population is projected to increase to approximately 22 percent. Approximately 28 percent of the population of the southern subdistrict is projected to be 65 or older in 1990. Top of the World, a retirement community, is being developed 10 to 15 miles from the Petitioner's present location. There is a large population of females aged 18 to 30 attending the University of Florida. The University is located in Gainesville which is within a 40 to 50 minute drive time from the Petitioner's present location. There are over 83,000 females aged 15-44 residing in Alachua and Marion Counties. Young adult females have the highest incidence of eating disorders such as bulimia and anorexia. From a clinical and programmatic perspective, to provide optimal therapy for geriatric and eating disorder patients: (1) the patients should be separated from the general psychiatric population; (2) the staff should be specially trained to deal with the unique problems posed by the two types of patients; and (3) the program and physical surroundings should be specially designed to accommodate the needs of the patients and to facilitate the rendition of services to patients. The Petitioner represented in its application that the Petitioner has a 16-bed geriatric program. Munroe Regional and Marion-Citrus Mental Health Center and Lake/Sumter Mental Health Supported the Petitioner's original application for its present facility based in part on the Petitioner's representation that 16 beds would be designated as geriatric beds. A facility for Citrus County with 51 beds has been approved which will have a gerontology program. In Hernando County 35 beds have been approved which includes a gerontology program. Seven letters of Support were submitted with the Petitioner's application. Only one of those letters mentions geriatric beds. No mention of an alleged need to provide an eating disorder program was mentioned by the Petitioner in its application. Eating disorder patients are treated at Shands in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. There are no existing or approved Specialized geriatric or eating disorder programs in district 3. The Petitioner Should be able to recruit physicians and other medical professionals to staff its proposed programs. ECONOMIC ACCESS. The Petitioner's admissions criteria include the ability to pay. The Petitioner has projected that 1.5 percent of patient revenues from the operation of the 24 additional beds will be attributable to indigent care. This amount is low. Applicants generally propose 3 to 7 percent indigent care. Generally, Short-term psychiatric Services are accessible to all residents of district 3. The evidence failed to prove, however, that short-term psychiatric Services in specialty hospitals are readily accessible to indigent residents. Munroe Regional Medical Center and Lake/Sumter County Mental Health provide psychiatric services to indigents. Lake/Sumter was recently granted a certificate of need authorizing it to move to Leesburg and to expand its hospital to include 33 short-term psychiatric beds which will be devoted almost exclusively to the treatment of indigents. These facilities are not specialty hospitals, however. The Petitioner's projected care of indigents does not include free evaluations and assessments provided at the Petitioner's counseling centers. In light of the fact that the Petitioner takes into account the ability to pay, however, this service will not significantly increase the care provided to indigent patients or accessibility of services to indigents. During the Petitioner's first year of operation it provided indigent care of approximately 4 percent of total revenues. It is therefore likely that the Petitioner will exceed its projected 1.5 percent indigent care. The Petitioner did not prove how much of an increase can be expected, however. The Petitioner has a corporate policy never to deny admission to a patient in need of emergency treatment because of inability to pay. The Petitioner's proposal will not significantly enhance services available to indigents. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AND IMPACT ON COSTS. 8O. If the Petitioner's proposal is considered based upon the need for additional beds in the district, it will be financially feasible. Its projected patient day projections are reasonable based upon district-wide need. If need is determined only on a district-wide basis, the opening of approved beds will not negatively affect the Petitioner's referral patterns or patient base. If need is determined only on a district-wide basis, the cost of psychiatric services in district 3 will not be negatively impacted by the Petitioner's proposal. If need is determined on a subdistrict basis, the Petitioner's proposal will not be financially feasible. There is insufficient need in the southern subdistrict for the Petitioner to achieve its patient day projections on a subdistrict basis. Planning Guideline 6 of the District III Health Plan provides: Providers proposing to expand or establish new psychiatric facilities should document that these services will not duplicate or negatively affect existing programs in the region. In light of the existence of an excess of 57 short-term psychiatric beds for the southern subdistrict based upon a subdistrict allocation of bed need, the Petitioner's proposed new beds will duplicate beds in existence or approved beds. If need is determined on a subdistrict basis, the cost of psychiatric services in the southern subdistrict will be negatively impacted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for the addition of 24 short- term psychiatric beds be approved. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 1987, 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 13th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ". Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding RO Number of Acceptance or of Fact Number Reason for Rejection 1 RO 7, 9-10 and 12. 2 RO 13-14. 3 RO 13 and 16. 4 RO 17. 5 RO 51. 6 RO 54 and 61. 7 RO 54. 8-10 Irrelevant. 11 RO 58-59. 12 RO 59. 13 The first sentence is accepted in RO 60. The second sentence is irrelevant. 14 RO 61-63. 15 Irrelevant. 16 RO 20 and 22. 17 RO 43. 18 RO 19. 19 RO 19-21. 20 RO 23. 21 RO 24. 22 RO 28. The last sentence is irrelevant. 23 RO 1, 9-10 and 12. 24 Irrelevant. It has been stipulated that the quality of care criterion has been met. 25 RO 64. 26 RO 71. The first sentence is accepted in RO 70. The second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 29-30 Irrelevant. 31 RO 55-56. 32 RO 74. RO 75. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. RO 73 and 76. The Petitioner did not commit to provide 1.5 percent of total revenues it committed to provide 1.5 percent of revenues from the 24 beds. The last sentence is irrelevant. 35 RO 77. 36 RO 78. 37 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 38-39 and 41 If need is determined on a district- wide basis these proposed findings of fact are true. If, however, need is determined on a subdistrict basis these proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 80 and 83. 40 Irrelevant. 42-44 Cumulative. See RO 80 and 83. 45 and 46 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 47-48 Irrelevant. If need is determined on a district-wide basis these proposed findings of fact are true. If, however, need is determined on a subdistrict basis these proposed findings of fact are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See RO 82 and 85. Irrelevant. The first sentence is statement of the law. The last sentence is irrelevant. This is a de novo proceeding. How the Respondent reached its initial decision is irrelevant. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is accepted in RO 50. Statement of law. 52 RO 45. 53 RO 46. 54 RO 47. 55 Irrelevant. 56 RO 48. 57 RO 49. Irrelevant. Conclusion of law. Irrelevant. 61-62 Prehearing Stipulation. Irrelevant. The parties have stipulated that the portion of the rule mentioned in the first sentence is met. The proposed finding of fact is also a discussion of law. It is therefore rejected. 65-67 Consideration of the state health plan is statutorily required. The Respondent does not apply the occupancy standard of the state health plan as a matter of policy, therefore. These proposed findings of fact are therefore irrelevant to the extent that they apply to the determination concerning the state health plan. To the extent that they pertain to the occupancy standard of the district health plan, they are hereby adopted. Conclusion of law. Irrelevant. The first sentence is irrelevant. The second sentence is contained in the Prehearing Stipulation as a stipulated fact. 71 RO 30. 72 Irrelevant and conclusion of law. 73-82 Irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 RO 1, 3-4, 9 and 11 2 RO 7 and 13. 3 RO 19. 4-6 Prehearing Stipulation. 7 8 and 9 RO 26. RO 27-28. The last sentence is 10 contrary to the facts stipulated to by the parties. The parties have stipulated that existing beds meet the occupancy standard. This proposed finding of fact is therefore unnecessary. RO 29. 11 RO 30 and 32-33. 12 RO 31. 13 RO 16 and 36. 14 RO 34. 15 RO 37-41. There are 84 licensed beds not 81. 16-17 Irrelevant. 18 RO 55-56. The evidence established that "at least" 73 percent of the Petitioner's patients originate from the southern subdistrict not that more than 73 percent. 19 RO 43. 20 Hereby accepted. 21 RO 51. RO 10 and 64. The first sentence is accepted in RO 65. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is uncorroborated hearsay. 24 RO 67. RO 12 and 68. Irrelevant or based upon uncorroborated hearsay. Not a finding of fact. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 29 RO 84-85. 30 Statement of law. 31 RO 72-73. 32 RO 85. 33 RO 83. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sandra Stockwell, Esquire Culpepper, Pelham, Turner & Mannheimer 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3300 J. Kevin Buster, Esquire Ross O. Silverman, Esquire King & Spalding 2500 Trust Company Tower Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Conclusions THIS CAUSE comes before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (‘the Agency") concerning the preliminary approval of Certificate of Need (“CON”) Application No. 10220, submitted by Palm Coast Behavioral Health, LLC’s (“Palm Coast”) to establish a 63- bed adult inpatient psychiatric hospital in Service District 4, Flagler County. 1. On June 9, 2014, the Agency published its preliminary approval of Application No. 10220 submitted by Palm Coast Behavioral Health, LLC’s (“Palm Coast”) to establish a 63- bed adult inpatient psychiatric hospital in Service District 4, Flagler County. 2. In response, Halifax Hospital Medical Center (“Halifax”) filed a petition for formal hearing contesting the approval of CON Application 10220. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings. 3. Halifax subsequently voluntarily dismissed its petition for formal hearing. It is therefore ORDERED: 1. The preliminary approval of CON Application No. 10220 is upheld subject to the conditions in the State Agency Action Report for Application No. 10220. Filed October 2, 2014 11:06 AM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this 27 _ day ot Seem foec ans Elizabeth Dutek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below- on named persons by the method designated on this ate PRAL 2014. CSCO Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Lorraine M. Novak, Esquire Facilities Intake Unit Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) James McLemore, Supervisor Marisol Fitch Certificate of Need Unit Health Services & Facilities Consultant Agency for Health Care Administration Certificate of Need Unit (Electronic Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) 2 Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Susan C. Smith, Esquire Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Corinne T. Porcher, Esquire Moyle Law Firm, P.A. Geoffrey D. Smith, Esquire Kputnal@moylelaw.com Smith and Associates Rweiss@moylelaw.com Susan@smithlawtlh.com (Electronic Mail) Corinne@smithlawtlh.com Geoffi@smithlawtlh.com (Electronic Mail) R. Bruce McKibben Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
Findings Of Fact CON APPLICATIONS HCR-CON No.7530 HCR is a publicly owned, for-profit corporation which operates approximately 25 nursing homes in Florida. HCR filed an application, CON No. 7530, to construct a 98-bed freestanding nursing home. HCR proposes to locate the nursing home in the northwest part of Orange County, Florida. HCR proposes that the entire 98-bed facility will be dedicated to the care of patients with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias. The total cost of the HCR project is $7,132,000 for 47,750 square feet, or $472,776 per bed. The HCR proposal is modeled after an HCR 120-bed nursing home facility in Boynton Beach, Florida. The Boynton Beach facility is entirely dedicated to the treatment of patients with Alzheimer's Disease or related dementias. The proposed HCR facility in Orange County would be identical to the Boynton Beach facility less one patient wing. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, as well as HCR's existing Orange County nursing home facility, have superior licensure ratings. HCR's Boynton Beach facility received accreditation with commendation from the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHCO), a national accreditation body which has established standards to measure the quality of care in dementia care units. Dementia is a complex of symptoms that can be caused by many different underlying diseases. Alzheimer's disease is one cause of dementia. Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia. Significant research is being conducted into the cause and treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Dementia is defined as a decline in intellectual function; global cognitive impairment, that is memory impairment and at least one of the following: impairment of abstract thinking; impairment of judgment; impairment of other complex capabilities such as language use, ability to perform complex physical tasks, ability to recognize objects or people, or to construct objects; and, personality change. The Reisberg Cognitive Rating Scale (RCS) classifies the stages of Alzheimer's disease from 1 to 7, with a rating of 7 being most severe. The rating scale is based on 10 axes: concentration, recent memory, past memory, orientation, functioning and self-care, speech, motor functioning, mood and behavior, practice of an art or skill, and calculation ability. The Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) for Age-Associated Cognitive decline and Alzheimer's Disease also defines seven stages of deterioration ranging from no cognitive decline to very severe cognitive decline. Persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease generally cannot survive without assistance upon reaching early dementia or level five on both the RCS and GDS. Approximately 50-58 percent of persons currently residing in community nursing homes suffer from some form of dementia. There is a need for community nursing home beds for persons suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease in Orange County. It is particularly difficult to place in nursing homes in Orange County, persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease (levels 5-7) who also have displayed a history of disruptive behavior patterns. Persons suffering from the latter stages of Alzheimer's disease have specific needs for care and treatment in nursing homes. Alzheimer's victims tend to wander and should have areas set aside for secured walking. The movement of Alzheimer's victims should also be carefully monitored. HCR's Boynton Beach facility, which is the prototype for HCR's proposed Orange County facility, has specific design features to accommodate the needs of patients suffering from the latter stages (levels 5-7) of Alzheimer's disease. HCR proposes a pod design of five residential pod units each with a central living area, also called the atrium area. The resident rooms open to the central living area. Each pod has an enclosed courtyard. Access to the courtyards is controlled. The two nursing stations are centrally located in each wing of the facility. Each central living area, or atrium, is visible from one or the other of the nursing stations. HCR provides specific staff training in the care and treatment of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. A unit or a facility dedicated to the treatment of dementia patients may reduce the need for psychotropic medication of the patients. On a long-term basis, there may be some staff burnout in a facility or unit dedicated solely to the care and treatment of victims of Alzheimer's disease or related dementias. HCR proposes that its CON be conditioned upon locating in northwest Orange County, providing at least 30 percent of its patient days to Medicaid eligible persons, providing respite care, and dedicating all 98 beds to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. HCR currently meets its Medicaid commitment in the Boynton Beach facility. LIFE CARE CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P LIFE CARE is a for-profit corporation which owns and operates two nursing homes in Florida. LIFE CARE also operates three other nursing homes in Florida. As of September 1993, LIFE CARE had a net worth of approximately $50 million. LIFE CARE proposes to construct a freestanding 98-bed nursing home (CON No. 7534) in southwest Orange County, at a total cost of $5,988,000. The LIFE CARE 98-bed facility proposal includes a 20-bed unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease, a 20-bed subacute unit, an adult day care center, mental health services, and services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. LIFE CARE also made a partial request (CON No. 7534P) for a 60-bed facility which would be constructed at the same site and would include the same features. For economic reasons, patients are being released from acute care hospital settings at earlier stages of recovery and there is a need for subacute nursing home services in Orange County. The incidence of AIDS/HIV is increasing and there is a need for nursing home services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The 20-bed unit proposed by LIFE CARE for the care and treatment of Alzheimer's patients will be a distinct part of the facility, separate from other residents. The Alzheimer's unit has its own dining area and activity area, a centrally located bathing facility, and a secured courtyard for wandering space. The 20-bed LIFE CARE subacute unit will also be separate. The subacute unit will have two ventilator areas and be contiguous to a therapy area. The LIFE CARE design includes outdoor courtyards, a library, gift shop, and ice cream parlor. Pursuant to Sections 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, one of the required elements of a CON application is the listing of capital projects, which is presented in Schedule 2 of the CON application. The Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in these proceedings is identical to the Schedule 2 filed by LIFE CARE in the December 1993 batching cycle for LIFE CARE'S proposed Clay County Project, CON No. 7501. It has been held that Schedule 2 of the LIFE CARE Clay County Project CON application No. 7501 met minimum CON application content requirements. Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, 20 F.L.W. 1435 (Fla. 1st DCA June 12, 1995). During November of 1993, a LIFE CARE nursing home located in Altamonte Springs was downgraded from a superior to a conditional licensure rating due to a deficiency related to outdated medication. The conditional rating given to the facility was in effect for approximately fifty days. The facility was then given a standard rating, and upon the annual survey in the fall of 1994, the facility has been recommended for a superior rating. All other LIFE CARE facilities have superior ratings. LIFE CARE proposes to condition its CON application upon providing Medicaid participation of 65 percent in the 98-bed facility, and 43 percent in the 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST CON No. 7528 ADVENTIST is a not-for-profit corporation that owns and operates nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care related enterprises. ADVENTIST is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Health Care Corporation, which owns and operates hospitals and health care facilities throughout the United States. ADVENTIST has operated health care facilities in Orange County since the early 1900s when Florida Hospital was founded. ADVENTIST is the largest hospital system in Orange County, with more than 1,400 beds located on five campuses. ADVENTIST proposes to add 38 beds to an existing freestanding 80-bed community nursing home, Sunbelt Living Center-East Orlando (SLC), which is directly adjacent to Florida Hospital's East Orlando campus. The ADVENTIST proposal would include a 20-bed subacute unit and also an 18-bed skilled nursing unit. This addition to SLC would be accomplished by constructing two new wings to the existing facility. The projected cost of the ADVENTIST addition is $1,386,500, or approximately $36,000 per bed. SLC is an 80-bed skilled nursing facility which opened in January of 1993. SLC has a superior licensure rating. SLC provides nursing home service to a variety of residents, including persons with AIDS/HIV, as well as persons with a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. SLC does not have a distinct Alzheimer's unit, but is equipped with security features to accommodate Alzheimer's patients. SLC staff is trained in the care and treatment of all its residents, including those with dementia. SLC reached an occupancy rate of 96 percent-97 percent capacity in its first ten months of operation. The SLC design is based on a residential model. The intent of the design is to create a residential community, and to encourage the interaction among the residents, and also between the residents and staff. The residential wings contain twelve rooms with private and semiprivate accommodations. Each room has its own toilet facilities. The support facilities, food service, therapy areas, administrative offices, visitor and welcoming areas, are located in the center of the facility. The residential wings are clustered on each side of the facility. The facility also features outdoor courtyards and walkways adjacent to the residential wings. ADVENTIST proposes to condition its CON application on providing a Medicaid commitment of 65 percent of total patient days in the non-subacute wing of the 38-bed expansion. The ADVENTIST proposal also features an AIDS program and respite care. ADVENTIST currently meets it Medicaid commitment at SLC. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. There is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. In the 20-bed subacute unit ADVENTIST proposes that each room will include wall-mounted suction and gases to accommodate ventilator dependent patients, which will enable ADVENTIST to provide more intensive subacute care. RHA/PRINCETON CON No.7538 RHA is the owner and operator of Princeton Hospital, located on the west side of Orlando. Princeton Hospital is situated on 32 acres bordering Lake Lawne. Princeton Hospital has 150 beds, including 24 psychiatric beds, a multipurpose intensive care unit, a 13-bed progressive care unit, a nursery, pediatric services, women's services, an obstetrical unit and an inpatient cardiac catheterization lab. The psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital treats a wide range of mental disorders, including those afflicting the elderly population. The hospital also operates a senior psychiatric partial hospitalization program which serves geriatric patients, including persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Princeton Hospital currently provides care and treatment to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. Princeton Hospital is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. On August 1, 1994, subsequent to the filing of CON application No. 7538, Princeton Hospital entered into a wide-ranging affiliation agreement with the University of Florida, College of Medicine and Shands Hospital. The agreement provides for extensive reciprocal training and educational programs between Princeton Hospital and the College of Medicine, as well as Shands Hospital. The agreement also provides for priority transfer of patients between Princeton and Shands hospitals. RHA proposes to include its nursing home facility within the scope of the affiliation agreement. The nursing home staff would benefit from the training and educational opportunities, and the nursing home patients would have access to priority reciprocity with the College of Medicine and Shands Hospital as provided for in the agreement. During fiscal years 1993 and 1994 Princeton Hospital had a Medicaid patient ratio of approximately 40 percent. Princeton Hospital also provides indigent care. RHA proposes to construct a freestanding 60-bed Medicaid certified skilled nursing facility on the campus of Princeton Hospital at a cost of $4,991,961 for 43,741 square feet, or $83,199 per bed. The services that are proposed include subacute care, a 15-bed unit for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, long term care, and two pediatric beds. Respite care will also be provided. RHA proposes that its subacute care unit would provide step-down care for patients referred from acute care hospital settings. RHA also proposes to provide rehabilitative therapies to serve patients suffering from fractured hips and joint replacements as well as other patients needing more intensive physical therapy. Cardiac and respiratory patients will also be served in the subacute unit. As indicated above, there is a need for subacute nursing home beds in Orange County. RHA's proposed 15-bed Alzheimer's unit will be a distinct and secured part of the facility. The unit will have its own enclosed courtyard and activities area. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias in Orange County. RHA also proposes a program dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This program will provide long-term care, and will include psychiatric, as well as subacute services. As indicated above, there is a need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in Orange County. The RHA proposal includes two pediatric nursing home beds. It is not uncommon to provide pediatric nursing home beds in a small unit within a nursing home facility. These beds will provide subacute care to pediatric patients referred from acute care hospital settings. It is anticipated that the pediatric unit will serve patients with respiratory problems and other multiple system failures. RHA has experienced difficulty in placing pediatric patients discharged from Princeton Hospital. The RHA facility is designed in a series of modules. There are four patient wings located around a single nursing station. The Alzheimer's wing is distinct and secured. The pediatric beds are located in a single semiprivate room close to the nursing station. The subacute unit includes six beds with wall-mounted medical gases and vacuums. Each residential room has approximately 272 net square feet, and features its own handicapped toilet and bathing facilities. The facility includes a chapel, convenience store, laundry, ice cream shop, and beauty shop, designed in a mall concept. The corridors are ten feet in width instead of the standard eight feet. The intent of the design concept is to encourage social interaction. As designed, the location of the soiled utility room in the facility does not comply with applicable Florida code regulations; however, a proposed minor change in the design will move the soiled utility room approximately twenty feet to bring the facility into compliance with Florida code regulations. ALLOCATION FACTORS Relationship to District and State Health Plans Section 408.035(1)(a), Florida Statutes District Health Plan Allocation Factor 1 of the District Health Plan provides a priority for an applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center. This preference will continue to be given applicants until a total of 120 beds is obtained. HCR is the only applicant proposing to locate in the northwest Orange County population center; however, in January of 1993, Sunbelt Living Center, a 120-bed community nursing home opened in Apopka, Florida, which is located in the northwest Orange County population center. Accordingly, the total bed number for this preference has been obtained, and this district allocation factor is inapplicable to these proceedings. Allocation Factor 2 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for applicants developing specific services for newborn and/or pediatric patients. RHA is the only applicant proposing specific services which include a unit for the care and treatment of pediatric patients. Accordingly, RHA is the only applicant which meets this allocation factor. Allocation Factor 3 of the District Health Plan provides a preference for an applicant proposing to develop a specific specialty service (or services), such as a unit for medically complex patients, a unit dealing with psychiatric disorders as a primary diagnosis, or services for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. This preference is also provided to an applicant which commits to working with, or in conjunction with, an existing provider of a specialty service, such as hospices, or mental health providers. RHA is the applicant which best meets this allocation factor. The RHA proposal provides for specialty services for medically complex patients, provides for services to persons suffering from AIDS/HIV, and RHA specifically commits to working with mental health providers, including working with the psychiatric unit at Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE also propose to provide specialty services to medically complex patients in subacute units; however, the ADVENTIST facility is better equipped in this regard and is designed with piped in medical gases, vacuum, and expanded electrical capacity will have the capability to provide more extensive services. LIFE CARE also proposes to treat persons suffering from AIDS/HIV and persons with mental disorders. The LIFE CARE proposal, however, is not as specific in this regard as that of RHA. HCR proposes to provide specialty services to persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, and is in general compliance with this allocation factor. State Health Plan Allocation Factors Each applicant meets the first State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to locate in areas within the subdistrict with occupancy rates exceeding 90 percent. The occupancy rate in Orange County exceeds 90 percent. RHA and LIFE CARE meet the second State Health Plan allocation factor which provides a preference for an applicant proposing to serve Medicaid patients in proportion to the average subdistrict-wide percentage of nursing homes. In Orange County the average is 65 percent for Medicaid service. ADVENTIST meets this preference with regard to its non-subacute unit. HCR which proposes a 30 percent Medicaid service does not meet this preference. The third State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing specialized services to special care residents, including AIDS residents, Alzheimer's residents, and the mentally ill. Each applicant generally complies with this allocation factor and offers specialty services; however, RHA with its broader spectrum of specialty services, including services to AIDS/HIV residents, Alzheimer's residents, and its specific commitment to working with residents suffering from psychiatric disorders best meets this preference. The fourth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to provide a continuum of services to community residents including, but not limited to, respite care and adult day care. RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this preference. RHA and ADVENTIST have a history of providing quality health care service to the community. RHA and ADVENTIST have extensive ongoing relationships with acute care hospitals. HCR and LIFE CARE have also established relationships which will address providing a continuum of care, but not to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. The fifth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing to construct facilities which provide maximum resident comfort and quality of care. Each applicant proposes facilities designed to provide resident comfort and quality care. Each design has comfortable resident rooms, spacious activities areas, recreation areas, courtyards, landscaping, therapy rooms, and staff lounge areas. Each applicant meets this preference. The sixth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing innovative therapeutic programs which have proven effective in enhancing the residents' physical and mental functioning level and which emphasize restorative care. Each of the applicants' proposals feature specific elements of innovative therapeutic programs. HCR has received an award for its innovative design of the Boynton Beach Alzheimer's unit. RHA offers a multi-discipline approach with a psychiatric program. ADVENTIST offers an intensive subacute care unit, and LIFE CARE offer a well-balanced approach with intensive staff training. The seventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant proposing charges which do not exceed the highest Medicaid per diem rate in the subdistrict. In this respect, HCR projects Medicaid charges of $96.20 per patient day in Year 1, and $93.32 in Year 2. LIFE CARE projects Medicaid charges of $104.74 per patient day in Year 1, and $106.20 in Year 2. ADVENTIST projects Medicaid charges of $106.00 per patient day in Year 1, and $111.30 in Year 2. RHA projects Medicaid charges of $107.02 per patient day in Year 1, and $109.24 in Year 2. While HCR projects the lowest Medicaid per diem charges and appears to best meet this allocation factor, all applicants have agreed to a specified Medicaid utilization rate, and will accept the appropriate Medicaid reimbursement levels. The eighth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant with a history of providing superior resident care in Florida or other states. HCR has maintained superior licensure ratings, and its prototype Boynton Beach facility currently is rated superior. LIFE CARE in 1993 experienced a conditional rating for its Altamonte Springs facility; however, the facility, upon evaluation in the fall of 1994, is now recommended for a superior licensure rating. RHA does not currently operate nursing homes; however, RHA has a history of providing quality care in its Princeton Hospital. ADVENTIST is the only applicant proposing to add nursing home beds to an existing facility that currently has a superior licensure rating, and in this respect, ADVENTIST best meets this allocation factor. The ninth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference to an applicant proposing staff levels which exceed minimum staffing standards contained in licensure administrative rules. Applicants proposing higher ratios of RNs- and LPNs-to-residents shall be given preference. All applicants meet this factor; however a comparison of the nursing staffing patterns of the applicants reflects that HCR (45.40 nursing FTE) and LIFE CARE (45.30 nursing FTE) have a higher than the minimum required ratio of nursing staff to residents for their proposed 98-bed facilities. RHA has proposed 35.30 nursing FTE for its 60-bed facility. ADVENTIST proposes a total 62.40 nursing FTE for its facility after the proposed 38-bed addition. The tenth State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who will use professionals from a variety of disciplines to meet the residents' needs for social services, specialized therapies, nutrition, recreational activities, and spiritual guidance. These professionals shall include physical therapists, mental health nurses, and social workers. All the applicants offer a wide range of social, spiritual, nutritional, and recreational services. RHA, however, also proposes specific utilization of mental health care professionals, and a specific affiliation with the psychiatric care professionals from Princeton Hospital, and best meets this factor. The eleventh State Health Plan allocation factor provides a preference for an applicant who ensures the residents' rights and privacy, and who implements a well-designed quality assurance and discharge planning program. Each applicant has documented specific plans for quality assurance and ensuring the residents' rights and privacy are protected. Accordingly, each applicant meets this factor. The final State Health Plan allocation factor provides for a preference to an applicant proposing lower administrative costs, and higher resident care costs compared to the average nursing home in the district. HCR has the lowest projected administrative and overhead costs ($18.28 per patient day as of Year 2), and best meets this allocation factor. Statutory Review Criteria, Section 408.035(1), F.S. Section 408.035(1)(b): The availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization, inadequacy of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant. HCR, LIFE CARE, and RHA each proposes a unit dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (HCR 98-bed facility, LIFE CARE 20-bed unit, and RHA 15-bed unit). ADVENTIST, while currently providing care for Alzheimer's patients at SLC, does not propose a distinct Alzheimer's unit in its 38-bed addition. There are currently at least five nursing homes in the service district, and two others in close proximity, which feature dedicated Alzheimer's units, with a total of at least 345 nursing home beds serving Alzheimer's patients. There is a high utilization rate of Alzheimer's nursing home beds in the district. While there is an established need for more beds to serve Alzheimer's patients, particularly Alzheimer's patients with a history of disruptive behavior, there are additional needs in the service district to provide care and treatment for subacute patients, and for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV. It is difficult to quantify the need for subacute nursing home beds due to the differing professional definitions of what constitutes subacute care; however, acute care hospitals in Orange County are, for cost-effective reasons, now releasing patients on an earlier basis, and there is an established need for nursing home beds to accommodate persons released from acute care hospitals. There is a high utilization rate of subacute beds in the district. There has also been an increase in the incidence of AIDS/HIV patients, and in the need for nursing home beds for persons suffering from AIDS/HIV in the service district. Section 408.035(1)(c): The ability of the applicant to provide quality of care and the applicant's record of providing quality of care. Each applicant has the ability to provide quality of care, and each applicant has a history of providing quality of care. The distinguishing factors in this regard are that LIFE CARE is the only applicant that has experienced a downgrading of a nursing home facility from a superior to a conditional licensure rating, and ADVENTIST is the only applicant that proposes to add nursing home beds to a facility that currently has a superior licensure rating. In comparison, ADVENTIST best meets this factor, and LIFE CARE least meets this factor. Section 408.035(1)(e): Probable economies and improvements in service that may be derived from operation of joint, cooperative, or shared health care resources. ADVENTIST and RHA both have specific proposals to work with, and share services with acute care hospitals. Both are in close proximity to acute care hospitals which will expedite sharing of medical resources. RHA will also share dietary services with Princeton Hospital. The freestanding facilities proposed by HCR and LIFE CARE do not have this advantage. Section 408.035(1)(f): The need in the service district for special equipment and services which are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. This factor is inapplicable to the proposals. No specific need was established as to special services and equipment not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas. There are dedicated Alzheimer's units and dementia services for persons in adjoining areas. Section 408.035(1)(g): The need for research and educational facilities, including but not limited to, institutional training programs and community training programs for health care practitioners. RHA has an extensive proposal for the participation and training of health care practitioners in conjunction with Princeton Hospital and best meets this criterion. RHA's affiliation with the University of Florida College of Medicine, Shands Hospital, and the Brain Institute at the University of Florida enhances this proposal. ADVENTIST shares a similar educational and training relationship with Florida Hospital, and with Florida Hospital's registered nurse baccalaureate degree program through Southern College. LIFE CARE proposes to establish relationships with local community colleges and education centers to sponsor nursing programs. Section 408.035(1)(h): The availability of resources, including health manpower, management personnel, and funds for capital and operating expenditures for project accomplishment As stipulated, each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant also has substantial personnel and management resources available for project accomplishment. Section 408.035(1)(i): The immediate and long- term financial feasibility of the proposal. LIFE CARE, ADVENTIST and RHA meet this criterion, and reasonably project positive cash flows by the second year of operation. RHA a not-for- profit corporation, projects a net loss of $114,000 in Year 1 of operation, and an excess of revenues over expenses of $53,000 in Year 2 of operation. LIFE CARE projects a net loss of $440,496 in Year 1 and a net gain of $145,085 in Year 2 for the 98-bed facility, and a net loss of $259,971 in Year 1 and a net gain of $54,920 in Year 2 for the 60-bed facility. HCR projects an after-tax profit of $25,000 in Year 2; however, in order to attain a level of profitability HCR must meet its projected 65 percent private pay utilization. This is a very high private payor mix, and there is a significant question as to whether this payor mix is attainable in the subdistrict; however, as proposed, HCR meets this factor. Sections 408.035(1)(k)(l) and (m): Impact of the project on cost of health services; cost effective- ness; construction costs. ADVENTIST proposes the most cost-effective project by adding beds to an existing facility (SLC). The addition of 38 beds to SLC will promote and maximize the overall efficiency of the facility which was originally designed with core support features to accommodate 120 residents. The proposed 38-bed addition to SLC will also lower the costs per patient day of the entire facility. The ADVENTIST proposal adds nursing home beds at the lowest per bed cost ($36,000 per bed) of all applicants. Similarly, RHA is located on the campus of an existing acute care hospital owned by the applicant and, unlike HCR and LIFE CARE, projects no actual cash expenditure for land acquisition. Each applicant has proposed a reasonable design of its proposed facility and reasonable construction costs, and taken into consideration applicable costs and methods of energy provision and conservation. Each applicant meets this criterion. Each applicant has also proposed a very high quality of care facility that will foster competition and promote quality assurance and cost- effectiveness. Each applicant meets this criterion. Section 408.035(1)(n): The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. RHA, ADVENTIST and LIFE CARE have proposed providing health care services to Medicaid patients at rates at, or in excess of, the district average. HCR proposes the lowest Medicaid service rate at 30 percent. RHA also has a strong record of providing Medicaid services and service to the medically indigent at Princeton Hospital. All applicants except HCR meet this factor. Section 408.035(1)(o): The applicant's past and proposed provision of services which promote a continuum of care in a multilevel health care system. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals best meet this criterion. Both the RHA and the ADVENTIST proposals are closely associated with existing hospitals, and emphasize a continuum of care from the acute hospital setting to a nursing home facility. The RHA and ADVENTIST proposals promote the interaction of health care professionals in a multilevel health care system. The HCR and LIFE CARE proposals do not reflect such an extensive interconnection with other aspects of the health care system, and do not promote a continuum of care to the extent proposed by RHA and ADVENTIST. Section 408.035(2)(b): Whether existing inpatient facilities providing inpatient services similar to those being proposed are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner. The evidence reflects that the existing inpatient facilities in, or adjacent to, the district which offer subacute and AIDS services, as well as services dedicated to the care and treatment of persons suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are operating at, or near, capacity, and are being used in an appropriate and efficient manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: RHA's application for CON No. 7538 be APPROVED. ADVENTIST'S application for CON No. 7528 be APPROVED. HCR's application for CON No. 7530 be DENIED. LIFE CARE'S applications for CON Nos. 7534 and 7534P be DENIED. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of July, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 27th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX HCR's Proposed Findings 1-5. Accepted in substance. 6. Rejected, insofar as quantification of need for subacute services, while not readily ascertainable, was demonstrated by other applicants.demonstrated need existed in district 7-8. Accepted in substance. 9. See Number 6. 10-14. Accepted in substance, but disposed of by ruling in Clay County case. 15-27. Accepted in substance. 28-36. Rejected insofar as quantification of need for subacute services is not readily accessible; however, need for such services was established. Accepted, except that need for 120 beds has been met. Accepted, except that RHA proposes specific pediatric services and is entitled to preference. Accepted in substance, except last sentence is rejected. Accepted. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST meets preference as to the non- subacute unit. 42-43. Accepted in substance. 44-45. Rejected. Accepted in substance. Accepted, except that ADVENTIST and RHA also meet this factor, and ADVENTIST is adding beds to an existing superior-rated facility. 48-50. Accepted in part, other applicants meet these factors. 51-65. Accepted in substance; however other services are also needed in the district. 66-67. Rejected. 68-73. Accepted in substance. 74-76. Accepted; however other services are also needed in the district. 77. Rejected. 78-86. Accepted in substance. 87-94. Accepted only to the extent that the HCR proposal meets the minimum requirements to demonstrate financial feasibility. 95-103. Accepted in substance; however each applicant's proposal also meets this factor. 104-112. Accepted in substance. 113. Rejected. 114. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. 115-116. Accepted only as to RHA design features. 117-122. Rejected. 123-127. Accepted in substance. 128-131. Rejected. LIFE CARE's Proposed Findings 1-3. Accepted in substance. 4. Accepted, except that district plan includes consideration of pediatric population. 5-7. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. See Finding No. 4. Rejected to the extent that it is not uncommon for pediatric care to be provided in a nursing home setting. 10-38. Accepted in substance. 39-40. Rejected to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST have competitive staff salaries and have experienced no difficulty in hiring qualified staff. 41-57. Accepted in substance. 58-59. Rejected. Accepted; however RHA proposes a minor change to correct this design. Rejected. 62-65. Accepted in substance. 66-69. Disposed of by Clay County case. Accepted; however ADVENTIST meets this factor in the non-subacute unit. Accepted in substance. ADVENTIST's Proposed Findings 1-4. Accepted in substance. 5. Accepted only to the extent that HCR does not propose a specific subacute care unit. 6-13. Accepted in substance. Rejected to the extent that HCR's proposal meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. Accepted. 16-17. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. 20-21. Accepted in substance. 22-26. Disposed of by Clay County case. 27-29. Accepted in substance 30-31. Rejected. 32-35. Accepted in substance. 36. Rejected; see No. 19. 37-106. Accepted in substance. 107. Accepted; see No. 19. RHA's Proposed Findings 1-21. Accepted in substance. 22. Accepted; however other applicants also meet these factors. 23-54. Accepted in substance. 55. Accepted to the extent that there are at least seven nursing homes with dedicated Alzheimer's units in or near the service area. 56-92. Accepted in substance. 93-96. Accepted; however HCR meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 97-102. Accepted; however LIFE CARE meets minimum financial feasibility requirements. 103. Rejected. 104-122. Accepted in substance. 123. Rejected. 124-135. Accepted in substance. 136. Rejected to the extent that all applicants have met the design criterion. 137-140. Accepted in substance. 141. Rejected. 142-145. Accepted in substance. 146. Accepted to the extent that RHA and ADVENTIST best meet this criterion. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen K. Boone, Esquire BOONE, BOONE & BOONE, P.A. Post Office Box 1596 Venice, Florida 34284 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida. 32301 R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., Esquire PENNINGTON & HABEN, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, 2nd Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire MACFARLANE, AUSLEY, FERGUSON & MCMULLEN, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Dean Bunton, Esquire Senior Attorney, AHCA Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4131 Steven R. Bechtel, Esquire MATEER, HARBERT & BATES, P.A. Post Office Box 2854 Orlando, Florida 32802 James M. Barclay, Esquire COBB, C0LE & BELL 131 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came on for consideration before the Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency”), which finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency issued the Petitioner (“the Applicant”) the attached Notice of Intent to Deny the Application for Renewal and to Withdraw the Application from Further Review (Ex. 1). The parties entered into the attached Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2), which is adopted and incorporated by reference. 2. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. If the Agency has not already completed its review of the application, it shall resume its review of the application. The Applicant shall pay the Agency an administrative fee of $500.00 within 30 days of the entry of this Final Order. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” containing the AHCA number(s) should be sent to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 3. Any requests for an administrative hearing are withdrawn. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. This matter is closed. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this day of Sacha _)10. Agency for Hgalth Care Administration 1 Filed March 31, 2010 12:15 PM Division of Administrative Hearings.
Other Judicial Opinions A party that is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek judicial review which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the agency clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below- named persons/entities by the method designated on this 27 day of A hla , 2010. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone (850) 922-5873 Jan Mills Pat Caufman Facilities Intake Unit Field Office Manager Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) (Interoffice Mail) Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Thomas F. Asbury, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Eduardo R. Latour-Elizalde, Esq. Latour & Associates, PA 135 East Lemon Street Tarpon Springs, FL 34689-3619 (U.S. Mail) Administrative Law Judge Div. of Admin. Hearings (Interoffice Mail) Roger Bell Health Care Clinic Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (nteroffice Mail)
The Issue Does Petitioner, AHF MCO of Florida, Inc., d/b/a PHC Florida HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (Positive), have standing to contest the intended award to Simply for Regions 10 and 11 or to seek rejection of all proposals? (Case No. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Should the intended decision of Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to contract with Simply Healthcare Plans, Inc. (Simply), for Medicaid managed care plans for HIV/AIDS patients in Regions 10 (Broward County) and Region 11 (Miami-Dade and Collier Counties) be invalidated and all proposals rejected? (Case Nos. 18-3507 and 18-3508) Must the Agency negotiate with Petitioner, South Florida Community Care Network, LLC, d/b/a Community Care Plan (Community), about a plan to provide HIV/AIDS Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 because it was the only responsive proposer of services that was a Provider Service Network (PSN)? (Case No. 18-3512) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services in Region 10 for people with Serious Mental Illnesses because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3511) Must the Agency contract with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Children with Special Needs in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3513) Must the Agency negotiate with Community to provide Medicaid managed care services for Child Welfare patients in Region 10 because Community is a PSN? (Case No. 18-3514)
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Agency: Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, establishes the Agency as Florida’s chief health policy and planning agency. The Agency is the single state agency authorized to select eligible plans to participate in the Medicaid program. Positive: Positive is a Florida not-for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Positive serves about 2,000 patients in Florida. Positive’s health plan is accredited by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Healthcare. Its disease management program is accredited by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. Currently, the Agency contracts with Positive for a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan serving Regions 10 and 11. Simply: Simply is a Florida for-profit corporation operating a Medicaid health plan dedicated to serving people with HIV/AIDS. Currently, the Agency contracts with Simply to provide a SMMC HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan for Regions 1 through 3 and 5 through 11. Simply has maintained the largest patient enrollment of all HIV/AIDs plans in Florida since Florida started its statewide Medicaid managed care program. Community Care: Community is a Florida limited liability company. It is a PSN as defined in sections 409.912(1)(b) and 409.962(14), Florida Statutes. Staywell: Staywell is the fictitious name for WellCare of Florida, Inc., serving Florida’s Medicaid population. Sunshine: Sunshine State Health Plan (Sunshine) is a Florida corporation. It offers managed care plans to Florida Medicaid recipients. THE INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE TIMELINE On July 14, 2017, the Agency released 11 ITNs plans for Florida’s Medicaid managed care program in 11 statutorily defined regions. Region 10, Broward County, and Region 11, Miami-Dade and Collier Counties, are the regions relevant to this proceeding. Part IV of chapter 409, creates a statewide, integrated managed care program for Medicaid services. This program called Statewide Medicaid Managed Care includes two programs, Managed Medical Assistance and Long-term Care. Section 409.966(2), directs the Agency to conduct separate and simultaneous procurements to select eligible plans for each region using the ITN procurement process created by section 287.057(1)(c). The ITNs released July 14, 2017, fulfilled that command. The Agency issued 11 identical ITNs of 624 pages, one for each region, in omnibus form. They provided elements for four types of plans. Some elements were common to all types. Others were restricted to a specific plan type defined by intended patient population. The plan types are comprehensive plans, long-term care plus plans, managed medical assistance plans, and specialty plans. Section 409.962(16) defines “Specialty Plan” as a “managed care plan that serves Medicaid recipients who meet specified criteria based on age, medical condition, or diagnosis.” Responding vendors identified the plan type or types that they were proposing. The Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITNs on September 14, 2017. On October 2, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITNs. Addendum 2 included 628 questions about the ITNs and the Agency’s responses to the questions. Florida law permits potential responders to an ITN to challenge the specifications of an ITN, including the addendums. § 120.57(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Nobody challenged the specifications of the ITNs. As contemplated by section 287.057(c)(2), the Agency conducted “a conference or written question and answer period for purposes of assuring the vendors’ full understanding of the solicitation requirements.” Positive, Community, and Simply, along with United Healthcare of Florida, Inc., HIV/AIDS Specialty Plan (United), submitted responses to the ITN in Region 10 proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community was the only PSN to propose an HIV/AIDS plan for Region 10. Positive, Simply, and United submitted replies to the ITN for Region 11, proposing HIV/AIDS Specialty Plans. Community, United, Staywell, and one other provider submitted proposals to provide SMI Specialty Plan services in Region 10. Community was the only responding PSN. Community, Sunshine, and Staywell submitted proposals to provide Child Welfare Specialty Plans (CW) in Region 10. Community was the only PSN. Community, Staywell, and two others submitted proposals to offer Specialty Plans for Children with Special Needs (CSN) in Region 10. Community was one of two responding PSNs. Proposal scoring began November 6, 2017, and ended January 16, 2018. The Agency announced its intended awards on April 24, 2018. On April 24, 2018, the Agency issued its notices of intent to award specialty contracts in Regions 10 and 11. The following charts summarize the Agency’s ranking of the proposals and its intended awards. The two highest ranked plans, which the Agency selected for negotiations, are identified in bold. Region 10 – Children with Special Needs Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Community No 2 Miami Children’s Health Plan, LLC No 3 Our Children PSN of Florida, LLC No 4 Region 10 – Child Welfare Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell No 1 Sunshine Yes 2 Molina Healthcare of Florida, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 10 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Community No 3 Positive No 4 Region 10 – Serious Mental Illness Respondent Intended Award Ranking Staywell Yes 1 United No 2 Florida MHS, Inc. No 3 Community No 4 Region 11 – HIV/AIDS Respondent Intended Award Ranking Simply Yes 1 United No 2 Positive No 3 All of the Specialty Plan awards noticed by the Agency went to bidders who also proposed, and received, comprehensive plan awards. The protests, referrals, and proceedings before the Division summarized in the Preliminary Statement followed the Agency’s announcement of its intended awards. TERMS The voluminous ITN consisted of a two-page transmittal letter and three Attachments (A, B, and C), with a total of 34 exhibits to them. They are: Attachment A, Exhibits A-1 through A-8, Attachment B, Exhibits B-1 through B-3, and Attachment C, Exhibits C-1 through C-8. The ITN establishes a two-step process for selecting: an evaluation phase and a negotiation phase. In the evaluation phase, each respondent was required to submit a proposal responding to criteria of the ITN. Proposals were to be evaluated, scored, and ranked. The goal of the evaluation phase was to determine which respondents would move to negotiations, not which would be awarded a contract. The top two ranking Specialty Plans per specialty population would be invited to negotiations. In the negotiation phase, the Agency would negotiate with each invited respondent. After that, the Agency would announce its intended award of a contract to the plan or plans that the Agency determined would provide the best value. Together, the attachments and exhibits combined instructions, criteria, forms, certifications, and data into a “one size fits all” document that described the information required for four categories of managed care plans to serve Medicaid patients. The ITN also provided data to consider in preparing responses. The transmittal letter emphasized, “Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response.” The ITNs identified Jennifer Barrett as the procurement officer and sole point of contact with the Agency for vendors. The transmittal letter is reproduced here. This solicitation is being issued by the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, hereinafter referred to as “AHCA” or “Agency”, to select a vendor to provide Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Program services. The solicitation package consists of this transmittal letter and the following attachments and exhibits: Attachment A Instructions and Special ConditionsExhibit A-1 Questions TemplateExhibit A-2-a Qualification of Plan Eligibility Exhibit A-2-b Provider Service Network Certification of Ownership and Controlling InterestExhibit A-2-c Additional Required Certifications and StatementsExhibit A-3-a Milliman Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan Exhibit A-3-b Milliman Employee Organizational Conflict of Interest AffidavitExhibit A-4 Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria InstructionsExhibit A-4-a General Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-a-1 SRC# 6 - General Performance Measurement ToolExhibit A-4-a-2 SRC# 9 - Expanded Benefits Tool (Regional) Exhibit A-4-a-3 SRC# 10 - Additional Expanded Benefits Template (Regional)Exhibit A-4-a-4 SRC# 14 - Standard CAHPS Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b MMA Submission Requirements and Evaluation Criteria Exhibit A-4-b-1 MMA SRC# 6 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional)Exhibit A-4-b-2 MMA SRC# 14 - MMA Performance Measurement Tool Exhibit A-4-b-3 MMA SRC# 21 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts Statewide Essential Providers Exhibit A-4-c LTC Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-4-c-1 LTC SRC# 4 - Provider Network Agreements/Contracts (Regional) Exhibit A-4-d Specialty Submission Requirements and Evaluation CriteriaExhibit A-5 Summary of Respondent CommitmentsExhibit A-6 Summary of Managed Care Savings Exhibit A-7 Certification of Drug-Free Workplace ProgramExhibit A-8 Standard Contract Attachment B Scope of Service - Core Provisions Exhibit B-1 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) ProgramExhibit B-2 Long-Term Care (LTC) ProgramExhibit B-3 Specialty Plan Attachment C Cost Proposal Instructions and Rate Methodology NarrativeExhibit C-1 Capitated Plan Cost Proposal TemplateExhibit C-2 FFS PSN Cost Proposal Template Exhibit C-3 Preliminary Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Rate Cell Factors Exhibit C-4 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Expanded Benefit Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-5 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program IBNR Adjustment Factors Exhibit C-6 Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Program Historical Capitated Plan Provider Contracting Levels During SFY 15/16 Time Period Exhibit C-7 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data BookExhibit C-8 Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Data Book Questions and Answers Your response must comply fully with the instructions that stipulate what is to be included in the response. Respondents submitting a response to this solicitation shall identify the solicitation number, date and time of opening on the envelope transmitting their response. This information is used only to put the Agency mailroom on notice that the package received is a response to an Agency solicitation and therefore should not be opened, but delivered directly to the Procurement Officer. The ITN describes the plans as follows: Comprehensive Long-term Care Plan (herein referred to as a “Comprehensive Plan”) – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients. Long-term Care Plus Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services and Long-term Care services to eligible recipients enrolled in the Long-term Care program. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are only eligible for MMA services. Managed Medical Assistance (MMA) Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients. This plan type is not eligible to provide services to recipients who are eligible for Long-term Care services. Specialty Plan – A Managed Care Plan that is eligible to provide Managed Medical Assistance services to eligible recipients who are defined as a specialty population in the resulting Contract. Specialty Plans are at issue. The ITN did not define, describe, or specify specialty populations to be served. It left that to the responding vendors. Beyond that, the ITN left the ultimate definition of the specialty population for negotiation, saying in Section II(B)(1)(a) of Attachment B, Exhibit B-3, “[t]he Agency shall identify the specialty population eligible for enrollment in the Specialty Plan based on eligibility criteria based upon negotiations.” Some respondents directly identified the specialty population. Simply’s transmittal letter stated that it proposed “a Specialty plan for individuals with HIV/AIDS.” Positive’s response to Exhibit A-4-d Specialty SRC 4, eligibility and enrollment, stated, “the specialty population for the PHC [Positive] plan will be Medicaid eligible, male and female individuals from all age groups who are HIV positive with or without symptoms and those individuals who have progressed in their HIV disease to meet the CDC definition of AIDS.” Some others left definition of the specialty population to be inferred from the ITN response. The result is that the ITN left definition of the specialty populations initially to the respondents and ultimately to negotiations between the Agency and successful respondents. Petitioners and Intervenors describe the populations that they propose serving as HIV/AIDS patients, patients with SMI, CSN, and child welfare populations. ITN respondents could have proposed serving only cancer patients, serving only obstetric patients, or serving only patients with hemophilia. The part of the ITN requiring a respondent to identify the plan type for which it was responding offered only four alternative blocks to check. They were: “Comprehensive Plan,” Long-Term Care Plus Plan,” “Managed Medical Assistance Plan,” or “Specialty Plan.” Attachment A to the ITN, labeled “Instructions and Special Conditions,” provides an overview of the solicitation process; instructions for response preparation and content; information regarding response submission requirements; information regarding response evaluation, negotiations, and contract awards; and information regarding contract implementation. Exhibits A-1 to A-3 and A-5 to A-7 of the ITN contain various certifications and attestations that respondents had to prepare and verify. Exhibit A-4 contains submission requirement components (SRCs) to which respondents had to prepare written responses. Exhibit A-8 contains the state’s standard SMMC contract. ITN Exhibit A-4-a contains 36 general submission requirements and evaluation criteria (General SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-b contains 21 MMA submission requirements and evaluation criteria (MMA SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-c contains 13 LTC submission requirements and evaluation criteria (LTC SRCs). ITN Exhibit A-4-d contains five specialty submission requirements and evaluation criteria (Specialty SRCs). The responses that the 36 SRCs require vary greatly. Some are as simple as providing documents or listing items. Others require completing tables or spreadsheets with data. Consequently, responses to some SRCS apparently could be reviewed in very little time, even a minute or less. Others requiring narrative responses might take longer. Examples follow. General SRC 1 required a list of the respondent’s contracts for managed care services and 12 information items about them including things such as whether they were capitated, a narrative describing the scope of work; the number of enrollees; and accomplishments and achievement. General SRC 2 asked for documentation of experience operating a Medicaid health plan in Florida. General SRC 3 asked for information confirming the location of facilities and employees in Florida. General SRC 12 requested a flowchart and written description of how the respondent would execute its grievance and appeal system. It listed six evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 2 asks for a description of the respondent’s organizational commitment to quality improvement “as it relates to pregnancy and birth outcomes.” It lists seven evaluation criteria. MMA SRC 10 asks for a description of the respondent’s plan for transition of care between service settings. It lists six evaluation criteria including the respondent’s process for collaboration with providers. Specialty SRC 1 asks for detailed information about respondent’s managed care experience with the specialty population. Specialty SRC 5 asks for detailed information about the respondent’s provider network standards and provides five evaluation criteria for evaluating the answers. Exhibit A-8 of the ITN contains the standard SMMC contract. Attachment B and Exhibits B-1 to B-3 of the ITN contain information about the scope of service and core provisions for plans under the SMMC program. Attachment C and Exhibits C-1 to C-8 of the ITN contain information related to the cost proposals and rate methodologies for plans under the SMMC program. The ITN permitted potential respondents to submit written questions about the solicitation to the Agency by August 14, 2017. Some did. On September 14, 2017, the Agency issued Addendum No. 1 to the ITN. Among other things, Addendum No. 1 changed the anticipated date for the Agency’s responses to respondents’ written questions from September 15 to October 2, 2017. The Agency issued Addendum No. 2 to the ITN on October 2, 2017. Addendum No. 2 included a chart with 628 written questions from potential respondents and the Agency’s answers. Attachment A at A 10-(d) makes it clear that the answers are part of the addendum. Both Addendums to the ITN cautioned that any protest of the terms, conditions, or specifications of the Addendums to the ITN had to be filed with the Agency within 72 hours of their posting. No respondent protested. Instructions for the A-4 Exhibits included these requirements: Each SRC contains form fields. Population of the form fields with text will allow the form field to expand and cross pages. There is no character limit. All SRCs, marked as “(Statewide)” must be identical for each region in which the respondent submits a reply. For timeliness of response evaluation, the Agency will evaluate each “(Statewide)” SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable region’s evaluation score sheet(s). The SRCs marked as “(Regional)” will be specific and only apply to the region identified in the solicitation and the evaluation score will not be transferred to any other region. The instructions continue: Agency evaluators will be instructed to evaluate the responses based on the narrative contained in the SRC form fields and the associated attachment(s), if applicable. Each response will be independently evaluated and awarded points based on the criteria and points scale using the Standard Evaluation Criteria Scale below unless otherwise identified in each SRC contained within Exhibit A-4. This is the scale: STANDARD EVALUATION CRITERIA SCALE Point Score Evaluation 0 The component was not addressed. 1 The component contained significant deficiencies. 2 The component is below average. 3 The component is average. 4 The component is above average. 5 The component is excellent. The ITN further explained that different SRCs would be worth different “weights,” based on the subject matter of the SRC and on whether they were General, MMA, LTC, or Specialty SRCs. It assigned weights by establishing different “weight factors” applied as multipliers to the score a respondent received on a criteria. For example, “Respondent Background/Experience” could generate a raw score of 90. Application of a weight factor of three made 270 the maximum possible score for this criteria. “Oversight and Accountability” could generate a raw score of 275. A weight factor of one, however, made the maximum score available 275. General SRC 6 solicits HEDIS data. HEDIS is a tool that consists of 92 measures across six domains of care that make it possible to compare the performance of health plans on an “apples-to-apples” basis. SRC 6 states: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include, in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/ HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/ HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. The respondent shall provide the data requested in Exhibit A-4-a-1, General Performance Measurement Tool[.] x x x Score: This section is worth a maximum of 160 raw points x x x For each of the measure rates, a total of 10 points is available per state reported (for a total of 360 points available). The respondent will be awarded 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the national Medicaid mean and 2 points if their reported plan rate exceeded the applicable regional Medicaid mean, for each available year, for each available state. The respondent will be awarded an additional 2 points for each measure rate where the second year’s rate is an improvement over the first year’s rate, for each available state. An aggregate score will be calculated and respondents will receive a final score of 0 through 150 corresponding to the number and percentage of points received out of the total available points. For example, if a respondent receives 100% of the available 360 points, the final score will be 150 points (100%). If a respondent receives 324 (90%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 135 points (90%). If a respondent receives 36 (10%) of the available 360 points, the final score will be 15 points (10%). The SRC is plainly referring to the broad Medicaid- eligible population when it says “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” “Dual eligible” populations are persons eligible for Medicaid and Medicare. There, as throughout the ITN, the ITN delineates between a target population of all Medicaid-eligible patients and a specialty population as described in a respondent’s ITN proposal. The clear instructions for SRC 6 require, “Use the drop-down box to select the state for which you are reporting and enter the performance measure rates (to the hundredths place, or XX.XX) for that state's Medicaid population for the appropriate calendar year.” Community did not comply. General SRC 14 solicits similar data, in similar form using a similar tool, about a respondent’s Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS). CAHPS data is basically a satisfaction survey. It asks respondents to provide “in table format the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible) and the respondent’s results for the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) items/composites specified below for the 2017 survey for its adult and child populations for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (as measured by number of enrollees).” Just like General SRC 6 did with HEDIS data, General SRC 14 ITN instructed bidders to put their CAHPS data for the “target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible)” “for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees)” for multiple states into an excel spreadsheet “to the hundredths place[.]” Also, like General SRC 6, General SRC 14 includes an objective formula described in the ITN for scoring bidders’ CAHPS data. RANKING PROVISIONS Attachment A at (D)(4)(c)(2) stated: Each response will be individually scored by at least three (3) evaluators, who collectively have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual services are sought by this solicitation. The Agency reserves the right to have specific sections of the response evaluated by less than three (3) individuals. The ITN’s example of how total point scores would be calculated, discussed below, also indicated that some sections may be scored by less than three evaluators. The explanatory chart had a column for “[o]ther Sections evaluated by less than three (3) evaluators. ” The Agency’s policy, however, has been to assign at least three evaluators to score program specific SRCs. Attachment A at (D)(4)(e)(2) advised respondents how the agency will rank the competing responses. It was clear and specific, even providing an example of the process showing how the scores “will” be calculated. Step one of the explanatory chart stated that the Agency would calculate a total point score for each response. Step two stated that “[t]he total point scores will be used to rank the responses by an evaluator. . . .” Next, the rankings by the evaluator are averaged to determine the average rank for each respondent. This average ranking is critical because ranking is how the ITN said the Agency would select respondents for negotiation and how the Agency did select respondents for negotiation. The step two and step three charts, reproduced below, demonstrate that the ITN contemplated an evaluation process in which each response was to be evaluated in its entirety by three different evaluators, or maybe less than three, but indisputably in its entirety by those who evaluated it. This did not happen. Step 2 The total point scores will be used to rank the responses by evaluator (Response with the highest number of points = 1, second highest = 2, etc.). POINTS SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 446 Respondent 396 Respondent 311 Respondent 413 Respondent 425 Respondent 390 Respondent 443 Respondent 449 Respondent 397 Respondent 419 Respondent 389 Respondent 435 Respondent 410 Respondent 388 Respondent 459 Respondent 325 RANKING SUMMARY Evaluator A Evaluator B Evaluator C Evaluator D Respondent 1 1 Respondent 1 2 Respondent 1 4 Respondent 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 2 3 Respondent 2 2 Respondent 1 Respondent 3 4 Respondent 3 1 Respondent 3 3 Respondent 2 Respondent 4 3 Respondent 4 4 Respondent 4 1 Respondent 4 c) Step 3 An average rank will be calculated for each response for all the evaluators. Respondent 1 1+2+4+3=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 2 2+3+2+1=8÷4=2.0 Respondent 3 4+1+3+2=10÷4=2.5 Respondent 4 3+4+1+4=12÷4=3.0 PROVIDER SERVICE NETWORK PROVISIONS Florida law permits a PSN to limit services provided to a target population “based on age, chronic disease state, or medical condition of the enrollee.” This allows a PSN to offer a specialty plan. For each region, the eligible plan requirements of section 409.974(1) state, “At least one plan must be a provider service network if any provider service networks submit a responsive bid.” Section 409.974(3) says: “Participation by specialty plans shall be subject to the procurement requirements of this section. The aggregate enrollment of all specialty plans in a region may not exceed 10 percent of the total enrollees of that region.” The ITN addressed those requirements. The Negotiation Process section of Attachment A, Instructions and Special Conditions, says: The Agency intends to invite the following number of respondents to negotiation: Comprehensive Plans The top four (4) ranking Comprehensive Plans. Long-term Care Plus Plans The top two (2) ranking Long-term Care Plus Plans Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Managed Medical Assistance Plans Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans The top two (2) ranking Specialty Managed Medical Assistance Plans per specialty population. If there are no provider service networks included in the top ranked respondents listed above, the Agency will invite the highest ranked PSN(s) to negotiations in order to fulfill the requirements of Section 409.974(1), Florida Statutes and Section 409.981(1), Florida Statutes. Emphasis supplied. The ITN specifications in Section D.7, titled Number of Awards, state as follows about Specialty Plan awards: 7. Number of Awards In accordance with Sections 409.966, 409.974, and 409.981, Florida Statutes, the Agency intends to select a limited number of eligible Managed Care Plans to provide services under the SMMC program in Region 10. The Agency anticipates issuing the number of Contract awards for Region 10 as described in Table 5, SMMC Region, below, excluding awards to Specialty MMA Plans. Table 5 SMMC Region Region Total Anticipated Contract Awards Region 10 4 If a respondent is awarded a Contract for multiple regions, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded regions. The Agency will award at least one (1) Contract to a PSN provided a PSN submits a responsive reply and negotiates a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. A respondent that is awarded a Contract as a Comprehensive Plan is determined to satisfy the requirements in Section 409.974, Florida Statutes and Section 409.981, Florida Statutes and shall be considered an awardee of an MMA Contract and a LTC Contract. The Agency will issue one (1) Contract to reflect all awarded populations in all awarded regions. In addition to the number of Contracts awarded in this region, additional Contracts may be awarded to Specialty Plans that negotiate terms and conditions determined to be the best value to the State and negotiate a rate acceptable to the Agency. The Agency, at its sole discretion, shall make this determination. The Agency reserves the right to make adjustments to the enrollee eligibility and identification criteria proposed by a Specialty Plan prior to Contract award in order to ensure that the aggregate enrollment of all awarded Specialty Plans in a region will not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total enrollees in that region, in compliance with Section 409.974(3), Florida Statutes. If a respondent is awarded a Contract as a Specialty Plan and another plan type, the Agency will issue one (1) Contract to include all awarded populations in all awarded regions. A prospective vendor asked about the interplay of Specialty Plan options and the PSN requirements. The question and the answer provided in Addendum 2 follow: Q. Please clarify the number of PSN awards per region and how PSN awards will be determined based on the PSN's plan type (e.g., Comprehensive, LTC Plus, MMA, Specialty). As you know, Sections 409.974 and 409.981, Florida Statutes require one MMA PSN and one LTC PSN award per region (assuming a PSN is responsive) and the Agency has stated that an award to a Comprehensive Plan PSN will meet the requirements of both statutes. However, can the Agency further clarify whether other types of PSNs would meet the statutory requirements? Specifically, would a PSN LTC Plus award meet the requirements of Section 409.981, Florida Statutes? Similarly, would an award to a Specialty Plan PSN meet the requirements of Section 409.974, Florida Statutes? A. See Attachment A Instructions and Special Conditions, Section D Response Evaluations, and Contract Award, Sub-Section 7 Number of Awards. Yes, a PSN LTC Plus award would meet the requirements of Section 409.981(2). A Specialty Plan PSN would not meet the requirements of Section 409.974(1). The only reasonable interpretation of this answer is that Specialty Plan PSNs do not satisfy the requirement to contract with a responsive PSN imposed by section 409.974. None of the prospective vendors, including Community, challenged this clarification. EVALUATION PROCESS THE EVALUATORS The Agency selected 11 people to evaluate the proposals. The Agency assigned each person a number used to identify who was assigned to which task and to track performance of evaluation tasks. The procurement officer sent the evaluators a brief memo of instructions. It provided dates; described logistics of evaluation; emphasized the importance of independent evaluation; and prohibited communicating about the ITN and the proposals with anyone other than the procurement office. The Agency also conducted an instructional session for evaluators. Evaluator 1, Marie Donnelly: During the procurement, Ms. Donnelly was the Agency’s Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Quality. She held this position for five years before resigning. This bureau bore responsibility for ensuring that the current SMMC plans met their contract requirements for quality and quality improvement measures. Her role specifically included oversight of Specialty Plans. Evaluator 2, Erica Floyd Thomas: Ms. Thomas is the chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. She has worked for the Agency since 2001. Her Medicaid experience includes developing policies for hospitals, community behavioral health, residential treatment, and contract oversight. Before serving as bureau chief, she served as an Agency administrator from 2014 through 2017. Ms. Thomas oversaw the policy research and development process for all Medicaid medical, behavioral, dental, facility, and clinic coverage policies to ensure they were consistent with the state Plan and federal Medicaid requirements. Evaluator 3, Rachel LaCroix, Ph.D.: Dr. LaCroix is an administrator in the Agency’s Performance Evaluation and Research Unit. She has worked for the Agency since 2003. All her positions have been in the Medicaid program. Dr. LaCroix has served in her current position since 2011. She works with the performance measures and surveys that the current SMMC providers report to the Agency. Dr. LaCroix is a nationally recognized expert on healthcare quality metrics like HEDIS. She is also an appointee on the National Association of Medicaid Directors’ task force for national performance measures. Evaluator 4, Damon Rich: Mr. Rich has worked for the Agency since April 2009. He is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Recipient and Provider Assistance. This bureau interacts directly with AHCA’s current SMMC care providers about any issues they have, and with Medicaid recipients, usually about their eligibility or plan enrollment. Before Mr. Rich was a bureau chief, he worked as a field office manager for the Agency. Mr. Rich’s experience as bureau chief and field office manager includes oversight of the current SMMC Specialty Plans. Evaluator 5. Eunice Medina: Ms. Medina is the chief of the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Plan Management, which includes a staff of over 60 individuals, who manage the current SMMC contracts. Her experience and duties essentially encompass all aspects of the current SMMC plans. Ms. Medina started working with the Agency in 2014. Evaluator 6, Devona “DD” Pickle: Ms. Pickle most recently joined the Agency in 2011. She also worked for the Agency from November 2008 through November 2010. Ms. Pickle’s Agency experience all relates in some way to the Medicaid program. Since March 2013, Ms. Pickle has served as an administrator over managed care policy and contract development in the Bureau of Medicaid Policy. Her job duties include working with the current SMMC contractors. Ms. Pickle is also a Florida licensed mental health counselor. Evaluator 7, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez: Ms. Hurd-Alvarez has worked for the Agency’s Medicaid program since 1997. Since 2014, she has been a field office manager, overseeing compliance monitoring for all the current SMMC contractors. Before assuming her current position, Ms. Hurd-Alvarez implemented the LTC SMMC program. Evaluator 8, Gay Munyon: Ms. Munyon is currently the Chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Fiscal Agent Operations. Ms. Munyon began working with the Agency in April 2013. Ms. Munyon’s bureau oversees fulfillment of the Agency’s contract with the current SMMC fiscal agent. Her unit’s responsibilities include systems maintenance and modifications and overseeing the fiscal agent, which answers phone calls, processes claims, and processes applications. Ms. Munyon has 25 years of experience working with the Medicaid program. Evaluator 9, Laura Noyes: Ms. Noyes started working for the Agency in April 2011. Her years of Agency experience all relate to the Medicaid program, including overseeing six current comprehensive managed care plans by identifying trends in contractual non-compliance. Evaluator 10, Brian Meyer: Mr. Meyer is a CPA, who has worked for the Agency in the Medicaid program since 2011. He is currently chief of the Bureau of Medicaid Data Analytics. Mr. Meyer’s primary responsibility is overseeing the capitation rates for the current SMMC contractors. His experience includes Medicaid plan financial statement analysis, surplus requirement calculation analysis and, in general, all types of financial analysis necessary to understand financial performance of the state’s Medicaid plans. Evaluator 11, Ann Kaperak: Since April 2015, Ms. Kaperak has served as an administrator in the Agency’s Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity. Ms. Kaperak’s unit oversees the fraud and abuse efforts of the current SMMC plans. She also worked for the Medicaid program from November 2012 through May 2014. Ms. Kaperak worked as a regulatory compliance manager for Anthem/Amerigroup’s Florida Medicaid program between May 2014 and April 2015. Positive and Community challenge the Agency’s plan selections by questioning the qualifications of the evaluators. The first part of their argument is that the evaluators did not have sufficient knowledge about HIV/AIDS and its treatment. The evidence does not prove the theory. For instance, Positive’s argument relies upon criticizing the amount of clinical experience evaluators had managing patients with HIV/AIDS. That approach minimizes the fact that the managed care plan characteristics involve so much more than disease- specific considerations. For instance, many of the components require determining if the respondent provided required documents, verifying conflict of interest documents, management structure, quality control measures, and the like. General SRCs asked for things like dispute resolution models (SRC 16), claims processing information (SRC 17), and fraud and abuse compliance plans (SRC 31). MMA SRCs included criteria, like telemedicine (SRC 4), demonstrated progress obtaining executed provider agreements (SRC 6), and a credentialing process (SRC 12). Specialty SRCs included criteria like copies of contracts for managed care for the proposed specialty population (SRC 1), specific and detailed criteria defining the proposed specialty population (SRC 4), and the like. The evidence does not prove that disease-specific experience is necessary to evaluate responses to these and other SRCs. SRC 6 involving HEDIS data and SRC 14 involving CAHPS data are two good examples. They required respondents to input data into a spreadsheet. All the evaluators had to do was determine what those numbers showed. Evaluation did not require any understanding of disease or how the measures were created. All the evaluator had to know was the number in the spreadsheet. The second part of the evaluator qualification criticisms is that the evaluators did not give adequate weight to some responses. Positive and Community just disagree with the measures requested and the evaluation of them. They conclude from that disagreement that the evaluators’ qualifications were deficient. The argument is not persuasive. The last sentence of paragraph 69 of Positive’s proposed recommended order exemplifies the criticisms of Positive and Community of the evaluators’ qualifications. It states, “The fact that PHC [Positive] was ranked last among competing HIV plans shows that the SRC evaluators did not understand enough about managing individuals with HIV/AIDs to score its proposal competently.” The argument is circular and “ipse dixit”. It does not carry the day. The collective knowledge and experience of the evaluators, with a total of 128 years of Medicaid experience, made them capable of reasonably evaluating the managed care plan proposals, including the Specialty plan proposals. The record certainly does not prove otherwise. EVALUATION PROCESS The Agency assigned the evaluators to the SRCs that it determined they were qualified to evaluate and score. The Agency did not assign entire responses to an evaluator for review. Instead it elected a piecemeal review process assigning various evaluators to various sections, the SRCs of each response. Paragraph 30 of the Agency’s proposed recommended order describes this decision as follows: Although the ITN had contemplated ranking each vendor by evaluator, based on an example in the ITN, such ranking presumed a process where all evaluators scored all or nearly all of the responses to the ITN, which had occurred in the procurement five years ago. In this procurement, each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs based on their knowledge, and experience; therefore, ranking by evaluator was not logical because each had a different maximum point score. The initial SRC scoring assignments were: General SRCs 1 through 4, LTC SRCs 1 and 2, and Specialty SRC 1: Marie Donnelly, Laura Noyes, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 5 through 8, MMA SRCs 1 through 7, LTC SRCs 3 and 4, and Specialty SRCs 1 and 2: Marie Donnelly, Erica Floyd- Thomas, and Rachel LaCroix. General SRCs 9 through 14, MMA SRCs 8 through 11, LTC SRCs 5 through 7, and Specialty SRC 4: Damon Rich, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 15 through 17, MMA SRCs 12 and 13, and LTC SRCs 8 through 10: Damon Rich, Tracy Hurd-Alvarez, Gay Munyon. General SRCs 18 through 25, MMA SRCs 14 through 20, LTC SRCs 11 and 12, and Specialty SRC 5: Erica Floyd-Thomas, Eunice Medina, and DD Pickle. General SRCs 26 through 33 and LTC SRC 13: Gay Munyon, Ann Kaperak, and Brian Meyer. General SRCs 34 through 36 and MMA SRC 21: Marie Donnelly, Rachel LaCroix, and Tracy Hurd-Alvarez. The ranking process presented in the ITN and described in paragraphs 62-64, contemplated ranking each respondent by evaluator. The Agency carried this process over from an earlier procurement. In this procurement, despite what the ITN said, the Agency assigned responsibilities so that each evaluator reviewed only a subset of SRCs. Therefore, the ranking of responses by evaluator presented in the ITN could not work. It was not even possible because no one evaluator reviewed a complete response and because each SRC had a different maximum point score. Instead, the Agency, contrary to the terms of the ITN, ranked proposals by averaging the “total point scores” assigned by all of the evaluators. The Agency considered issuing an addendum advising the parties of the change. The addendum would have informed the respondents and provided them an opportunity to challenge the change. The Agency elected not to issue an addendum. EVALUATION AND SCORING The evaluators began scoring on November 6, 2017, with a completion deadline of December 29, 2017. The 11 evaluators had to score approximately 230 separate responses to the ITNs. The evaluators had to score 67,175 separate items to complete the scoring for all responses for all regions for all types of plans. No one at the Agency evaluated how much time it should take to score a particular item. None of the parties to this proceeding offered persuasive evidence to support a finding that scoring any particular item would or should take a specific length of time or that scoring all of the responses would or should take a specific length of time. Evaluators scored the responses in conference room F at the Agency’s headquarters. This secure room was the exclusive location for evaluation and scoring. Each evaluator had a dedicated workspace equipped with all tools and resources necessary for the task. The workspaces included a computer terminal for each evaluator. The system allowed evaluators to review digital copies of the ITN and proposals and to enter evaluation points in spreadsheets created for the purpose of recording scores. Evaluators also had access to hard copies of the proposals and the ITN. The Agency required evaluators to sign in and to sign out. The sign-in and sign-out sheets record the significant amount of time the evaluators spent evaluating proposals. Evaluators were not permitted to communicate with each other about the responses. To minimize distractions, the Agency prohibited cell phones, tablets and other connected devices in the room. The Agency also authorized and encouraged the evaluators to delegate their usual responsibilities. Agency proctors observed the room and evaluators throughout the scoring process. They were available to answer general and procedural questions and to ensure that the evaluators signed in and signed out. A log sheet documented how much time each evaluator spent in the scoring conference room. Some evaluators took extensive notes. For example, Ms. Median took over 200 pages of notes. Similarly, Ms. Munyon took nearly 400 pages of typewritten notes. The evaluators worked hard. None, other than Dr. LaCroix, testified that they did not have enough time to do their job. The computer system also automatically tracked the evaluators’ progress. Tracking reports showed the number of items assigned to each evaluator and the number of scoring items completed. The first status report was generated on December 8, 2017, approximately halfway through the scheduled scoring. At that time, only 28 percent of the scoring items were complete. Ms. Barrett usually ran the status reports in the morning. She made them available to the evaluators to review. The pace of evaluation caused concern about timely completion and prompted discussions of ways to accelerate scoring. Because it was clear that the majority of the evaluators would not complete scoring their SRCs by December 29, 2017, the Agency extended the scoring deadline to January 12, 2018. It also extended the hours for conference room use. Most respondents filed proposals for more than one type of plan and more than one region. This fact combined with the provision in the instructions saying that all statewide SRC responses must be identical for each region and that scores would transfer to each applicable region’s score sheets, enabled evaluators to score many SRCs just once. The system would then auto-populate the scores to the same SRC for all proposals by that respondent. This time saving measure permitted scoring on many of the items to be almost instantaneous after review of the first response to an SRC. The fact that so many respondents submitted proposals for so many regions and types of plans provided the Agency another opportunity for time-saving. The Agency loaded Adobe Pro on the evaluators’ computers as a timesaving measure. This program allowed the evaluators to compare a bidder’s Comprehensive Plan Proposal to the same company’s regional and Specialty Plan proposals. If the Adobe Pro comparison feature showed that the proposal response was the same for each plan, the Agency permitted evaluators to score the response once and assign the same score for each item where the respondent provided the same proposal. This speeded scoring. It, however, meant that for SRCs where evaluators did this, that they were not reviewing the SRC response in the specific context of the specialty plan population, each of which had specific and limited characteristics that made them different from the broader General and MMA plan populations. This is significant because so many SRCs required narrative responses where context would matter. There is no Specialty SRCs A-4 instruction requirement for specialty plans analogous to the requirement that responses for statewide SRCs must be identical for each region. In other words, the instructions do not say all SRCs marked as statewide must be identical for each specialty plan proposal and that the Agency will evaluate each Statewide SRC once and transfer the score to each applicable Specialty Plan score. In fact, according to the procurement officer, the Agency expected that evaluators would separately evaluate and score the statewide SRCs for Comprehensive Plans and for Specialty Plans, even if the same bidder submitted them. Despite the Agency’s expectation and the absence of an authorizing provision in the ITN, many evaluators, relying on the Adobe Pro tool, copied the SRC scores they gave to a respondent’s comprehensive plan proposal to its specialty plan proposal if the respondent submitted the same response to an SRC for a Comprehensive Plan and a Specialty Plan. For instance, Ms. Thomas (Evaluator 2) and Ms. Munyon (Evaluator 8) did this to save time. Ms. Donnelly (Evaluator 1) did this even when the comprehensive and specialty responses were not identical. This does not amount to the independent evaluation of the responses pledged by the ITN. On separate days, Evaluator 1 scored 1,315 items, 954 items, 779 items and 727 items. On separate days, Evaluator 2 scored 613 items, 606 items, 720 items, 554 items and 738 items. Evaluator 4 scored 874 items on one day. Evaluator 5 scored 813 items in one day. Evaluator 6 scored 1,001 items in one day. Evaluator 8 scored 635 items in one day. The record does not identify the items scored. It also does not permit determining how many of the item scores resulted from auto-population or assignment of scores based upon previous scoring of an identical response. It bears repeating, however, that the record does not support any finding on how long scoring the response to one SRC or an entire response could reasonably be expected to take. Even with the extended scoring period and time-saving measures, the Agency concluded that Evaluator 3 would not be able to finish all of the SRCs assigned to her. Rather than extend the deadline for scoring a second time, the Agency decided to reassign the nine of Evaluator 3’s SRCs that she had not begun scoring to two other evaluators. The Agency did not include scores of other SRCs for which Evaluator 3 had not completed scoring. The Agency only counted Evaluator 3’s scores for an SRC if she scored the SRC for everyone. The result was that only two people scored nine of the Specialty Plan SRCs. The Agency did not reassign all of Evaluator 3’s SRCs’. It only reassigned the SRCs to evaluators who were qualified to evaluate the items, who were not already assigned those items to score, and who had already finished or substantially completed their own evaluations. The decision to reassign the SRCs was not based on any scoring that had already been completed. The Agency did not allow changes to data submitted by any of the vendors. It allowed vendors to exchange corrupted electronic files for ones which could be opened and allowed vendors to exchange electronic files to match up with the paper copies that had been submitted. The Agency allowed Community to correct its submission where it lacked a signature on its transmittal letter and allowed Community to exchange an electronic document that would not open. It did not allow Community to change its reported HEDIS scores, which were submitted in the decimal form required by the instructions. Community erred in the numbers that it reported. There is no evidence showing that other vendors received a competitive or unfair advantage over Community in the Agency’s review of the SMI Specialty Plan submission for Region 10. There was no evidence that the Agency allowed any other vendors to change any substantive information in their submittals for that proposed specialty in that region. HEIDIS ISSUES Positive asserts that Simply’s proposal is non- responsive because Simply submitted HEDIS data from the general Medicaid population in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14. Positive contends that Simply obtained a competitive advantage by supplying non-HIV/AIDS HEDIS data in response to SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 because HIV/AIDS patients are generally a sicker group and require more care and because some HEDIS measures cannot be reported for an HIV/AIDS population. HEDIS stands for Healthcare Effectiveness and Data Information Set and is a set of standardized performance measures widely used in the healthcare industry. The instructions for both SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provide, in relevant part: The respondent shall describe its experience in achieving quality standards with populations similar to the target population described in this solicitation. The respondent shall include in table format, the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible), the respondent’s results for the HEDIS measures specified below for each of the last two (2) years (CY 2015/HEDIS 2016 and CY 2016/HEDIS 2017) for the respondent’s three (3) largest Medicaid Contracts (measured by number of enrollees). If the respondent does not have HEDIS results for at least three (3) Medicaid Contracts, the respondent shall provide commercial HEDIS measures for the respondent’s largest Contracts. If the Respondent has Florida Medicaid HEDIS results, it shall include the Florida Medicaid experience as one (1) of three (3) states for the last two (2) years. (JE 1 at 75 (SRC 6); JE 1 at 158 (MMA SRC 14)). SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 instruct respondents to provide HEDIS measures for “the target population (TANF, ABD, dual eligible).” Id.. TANF, ABD, and dual eligible are eligibility classifications for the Medicaid population. The Agency sought information regarding the target Medicaid-eligible population, even from respondents proposing a Specialty Plan, because Specialty Plans are required to serve all of the healthcare needs of their recipients, not just the needs related to the criteria making those recipients eligible for the Specialty Plan. Following the instructions in SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14, Simply provided HEDIS data from the Medicaid-eligible population for its three largest Medicaid contracts as measured by the total number of enrollees. For the requested Florida HEDIS data, Simply utilized legacy HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida, Inc., a Comprehensive Plan. Amerigroup and Simply had merged in October of 2017. Therefore, at the time of submission of Simply’s proposal, the HEDIS data from Amerigroup Florida was the data from Simply’s largest Medicaid contract in Florida for the period requested by the SRCs. Positive asserts that the Agency impermissibly altered scoring criteria after the proposals were submitted when the Agency corrected technical issues within a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 required the submission of numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures. To simplify submission of the numeric data for the requested HEDIS performance measures, the Agency required respondents to utilize a HEDIS Measurement Tool spreadsheet. The evaluation criteria for SRC 6 and MMA SRC 14 provided that respondents will be awarded points if the reported HEDIS measures exceed the national or regional mean for such performance measures. Some respondents, including Positive, entered “N/A,” “small denominator,” or other text inputs into the HEDIS Measurement Tool. During the evaluation and scoring process, the Agency discovered that if a respondent input any text into the HEDIS Measurement Tool, the tool would assign random amounts of points, even though respondents had not input measureable, numeric data. The Agency reasonably resolved the problem by removing any text and inserting a zero in place of the text. The correction of the error in the HEDIS Measurement Tool prevented random points from being awarded to respondents and did not alter scores in any way contrary to the ITN. It was reasonable and fair to all respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order rejecting all r esponses to the ITNs to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with HIV/AIDS in Regions 10 and 11. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for patients with serious mental illness. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order inviting Community to negotiate to provide a Medicaid Managed Care plan in Region 10 for c hild w elfare specialty services. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order awarding Wellcare of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Staywell Health Plan of Florida, a contract for a specialty Medicaid Managed Care plan for patients with Serious Mental Illness in Region 10. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Petition in Case No. 18-3513. DONE AND ENTERED this day of , , in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 day of , .
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence presented the following facts are found: Petitioners each made application for a certificate of need under the provisions of Sections 381.493 through 381.497, Florida Statutes, 1975, which applications were submitted to the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities and accepted as complete by the bureau. Each application seeks a certificate of need for a third generation computerized axial tomography scanner (whole body unit) hereinafter referred to as a CAT scanner. There is presently in Jacksonville a head scanner installed at St. Vincent Hospital in November, 1975, and a whole body scanner at St. Luke's Hospital which has been in full operation since January, 1976. All three Petitioners are located in Jacksonville, Florida. The applications were processed by the appropriate Health Systems Agency. After due consideration the Health Systems Agency recommended that each of the three applications be granted. At the request of the Bureau of Community Medical Facilities, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the State Hospital Advisory Council reviewed the applications and upheld the Health Systems Agency's determination that the three applications should be granted certificates of need. After consideration of the applications, the Health Systems Agency's recommendation the State Hospital Advisory Council's recommendation, Mr. Art Forehand, Administrator, Office of Community Medical Facilities, Respondent herein, notified each of the three Petitioners that their applications were not favorably considered. Mr. Forehand's notification set forth three reasons for the unfavorable consideration. Those were (1) lack of demonstrated need for the requested scanner, (2) failure of each application to demonstrate positive action toward containment of cost for services rendered to the public, and (3) lack of demonstrated unavailability, unaccessability, and inadequacy of like services within the Jacksonville area. At the time of his decision Mr. Forehand had no material or information available to him which was not available to the Health Systems Agency or the State Hospital Advisory Council at the time of their decision. At the time the three applications were denied Mr. Forehand felt that there did exist a need for one additional scanner in the Jacksonville area but he did not feel that he should bear the burden of deciding which one of the three applications should be granted and therefore all three were denied. Except for those matters set forth in Mr. Forehand's denial and noted above, none of the parties to this proceeding disputed that the criteria for determining need found in Section 101-1.03(c), F.A.C., were met. A study of computerized axial tomography with suggested criteria for review of certificate of need applications was conducted by the staff of the Health Systems Agency of Northeast Florida relative to the Duval County area. This study was published in April of 1976 and its findings appear to have been accepted by the Health Systems Agency. As one of its suggested criteria for determining need it found that a hospital or applicant should have a potential case load of at least 1,000 CAT scans per year. The study went on to project a potential case load for the three Petitioners herein. That projection for Baptist Memorial Hospital shows a a potential case load of 2,512 scans per year. The study noted that Baptist Memorial projected 1,300 scans for the first year during start up operations and 2,080 scans during the second and third years of their forecast. The study found that Riverside Hospital has a potential case load of 1,196 scans per year compared to their own projections of 1,432 scans per year. The study finally found that the University Hospital has a potential case load of 1,558 scans per year compared to their projection of 2,904. Testimony on behalf of the Respondent shows that in the opinion of Respondent full use of a CAT scanner is 10 scans per day on a 20-day work month working five days a week. As shown by unrebutted testimony the existing scanner at St. Luke's Hospital in Jacksonville is presently averaging 10 scans per day, five-days a week. Further, according to the evidence presented by Respondent, the existing scanner at St. Vincent is being utilized to at least 85 percent of its capacity. Respondent took the position at the hearing that when existing scanners are being used to 85 percent or more of their capacity a need exists for more equipment. Thus, it appears that using the criteria of utilization adhered to by Respondent, the existing CAT scanners in Jacksonville are being utilized to the extent that there is a need for additional scanners. University Hospital has 310 licensed beds and is the community hospital in Duval County with the responsibility of serving the indigent on an emergency and short term basis. It is the trauma center of the city and has the most active emergency room. It is also the major teaching hospital in Duval County. Respondent agrees that it has the greatest need of any hospital in Duval County for a CAT scanner. The University Hospital has approximately 300 visits per month to its emergency room. In the four months prior to the date of final hearing the hospital did 586 skull x-rays due to trauma. In the case of acute trauma patients frequently may not be moved from one hospital to another for the purpose of a CAT scan nor, in some cases, should other dangerous invasive techniques be used for diagnosis. Baptist Hospital has 567 licensed beds and is a major oncology center or cancer center and does a large amount of surgical cancer work in additional to radiation therapy. With the possible exception of University Hospital, Baptist Hospital is the largest pediatric hospital in the area. According to the testimony of the administrator of the hospital it would take 14 to 18 months after receipt of a certificate of need to have a CAT scanner in service. Riverside Hospital has 183 licensed beds. The hospital has been a specialty hospital since its establishment in 1908 and serves the Riverside Clinic. The hospital has approximately 200 specialized physicians, all board certified, on-staff. Riverside is a unique hospital because of its degree of specialty and its relationship to Riverside Clinic. Riverside Hospital does 100 percent of the Riverside Clinic's radiology work. Riverside Hospital has been known as an established diagnostic center. Witnesses for Riverside Hospital testified that if they were not able to have a CAT scanner their reputation and ability to provide first class service would be seriously diminished. CAT scanners represent a significant development in diagnostic medicine. They reduce the need for many dangerous, painful and costly injections of dye, air and radioactive isotopes required by some of the more traditional diagnostic procedures. The three most common tests displaced by CAT scanners are pneumoencephalography, angiography and radioactive isotope scanning. The first two of the foregoing are particularly expensive procedures and require hospitalization. At present, patients at the three Petitioner hospitals have to be transported to another facility in order to use a scanner. The transfer of an inpatient to another hospital for a scan may effectively consume the better part of a patient's day and may require an extra day of hospitalization. The cost of transportation, increased hospital stay and ancillary matters increase the actual cost to the Patient. Patients suffering from severe trauma or otherwise in a critical state, may not be transported out of a hospital to a scanner. All three of the Petitioners have an active neurological and neurosurgical staff and qualified radiologists. The unrebutted testimony indicates that, although CAT scanners are a new development whose potential has not yet been fully explored and whose development may not yet be final, they nevertheless have become an essential diagnostic tool of regular use.
