The Issue Whether the adult open heart surgery rule in effect at the time the certificate of need (CON) applications were filed, and until January 24, 2002, or the rule as amended on that date is applicable to this case. Which, if any, of the applications filed by Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (Martin Memorial); Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda); and Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCH) meet the requirements for a CON to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Health Planning District 9, for Okeechobee, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is the agency which administers the certificate of need (CON) program for health care facilities and programs in Florida. It is also the designated state health planning agency. See Subsection 408.034(1), Florida Statutes. For health planning purposes, AHCA District 9 includes Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties. See Subsection 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero for additional open heart surgery programs in District 9, for the January 2002, planning horizon. The mathematical need formula in the rule, using the use rate for open heart surgery procedures in the district as applied to the projected population growth, indicated a gross numeric need for 7.9 programs in District 9. After rounding off the decimal and subtracting four, for the number of existing District 9 open heart surgery programs, the formula showed a numerical need for four additional ones. The need number defaulted to zero, however, because one of the existing programs, at Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (Lawnwood), had not reached the required minimum of 350 surgeries a year, or 29 cases a month for 12 months prior to the quarter in which need was published. Having initiated services in March 1999, the Lawnwood program had not been operational for 12 months at the time the applications were filed in October 1999. The other existing providers of adult open heart services in District 9, in addition to Lawnwood, are Palm Beach Gardens Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center (PBGMC); Columbia/JFK Medical Center Limited Partnership, d/b/a JFK Medical Center (JFK); and Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals, Inc., d/b/a Delray Medical Center (Delray). All are intervening parties to this proceeding. In the Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed that the Intervenors have standing to participate in this proceeding. Despite the publication of zero numeric need, five hospitals in District 9 applied for CONs to establish new adult open heart programs asserting need based on not normal circumstances. Three of those applications are at issue in this case: CON Number 9249 filed by Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (Martin Memorial); CON Number 9250 by Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda); and CON Number 9248 by Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCH). AHCA initially reviewed and denied all of the applications. After changing its position before the final hearing, AHCA supports the approval of the applications filed by Martin Memorial and BRCH. Martin Memorial Martin Memorial, the only hospital in Martin County, and the only party/applicant not located in Palm Beach County, operates two facilities, a total of 336 beds, on two separate campuses under a single license. The larger hospital, in Stuart, has 236 beds and is located approximately 20 miles south of Lawnwood and 30 miles north of PBGMC. Martin Memorial owns and maintains, at the hospital, its own ambulance service used exclusively for hospital-to-hospital transfers. The drive from Martin Memorial to Lawnwood averages 38 minutes. The drive time to PBGMC averages 48 minutes. By helicopter, it takes 11 or 12 minutes to get from Martin Memorial to PBGMC. The remaining 100 Martin Memorial Hospital beds are located on its southern campus, approximately six miles south of the Stuart facility. Martin Memorial is a private not-for-profit hospital, established in 1939. The parent corporation also operates an ambulatory care center, physician group, billing and collection company, and a foundation. Martin Memorial is applying to operate an open heart program at its Stuart location, where it currently offers cardiology, hematology, nephrology, pulmonary, infectious disease, pathology, blood bank, anesthesiology, diagnostic nuclear medicine, and intensive care services. Martin Memorial has a 25-bed telemetry unit, a 14-bed medical intensive care unit, a nine-bed surgical intensive care unit, and a 22-bed progressive care unit, with an identically equipped 16-bed overflow unit used only for high seasonal occupancy, from approximately December to April. If its CON is approved, Martin Memorial will dedicate four surgical intensive care unit beds and six progressive care beds for post-open heart surgery patients. Martin Memorial agreed to condition its CON on the provision of 2.4% of the project's gross revenues for charity care and 2% for Medicaid. The total estimated project cost is $6.5 million. Martin Memorial intends to affiliate with the University of Florida and its teaching facility, Shands Hospital, to assist in establishing the program and training staff. The cardiovascular surgeon is expected to be a full-time faculty member who will live and work in Martin County. Although initially opposed, AHCA now supports Martin Memorial’s application primarily because (1) it has the largest cardiac catheterization (cath) program at any hospital in this state which does not also provide open heart services; (2) it has a medium size and growing Medicare population, which constitutes the age group most likely to require open heart surgery and related services; (3) Martin County residents now must receive open heart and related services at hospitals outside Martin County, primarily in areas ranging from Palm Beach County south to Dade County; (4) emergency heart attack patients who present at Martin Memorial-Stuart could receive primary angioplasties without transfer; and (5) it is a not-for-profit hospital, while all of the existing open heart providers in the District are for- profit corporate subsidiaries. Of the applicants, Martin Memorial is also located the greatest distance from the existing providers. Bethesda Memorial Bethesda has 362 licensed beds located in Boynton Beach. JFK is nine miles north or an average drive of 18 minutes from Bethesda. Delray is nine miles south or an average drive of 17 minutes from Bethesda. Established in February 1959, Bethesda is a not-for- profit subsidiary of Bethesda Health Care Systems, Inc., which also operates some for-profit subsidiaries, including Bethesda Medical/Surgical Specialists, Bethesda Management Services, and Bethesda Comprehensive Cancer Institute. Bethesda is a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid and Medicare services. The services currently available at Bethesda include obstetrics, Level II and III neonatal intensive care, cardiology, orthopedics, pediatrics, neurological and stroke care, peripheral vascular surgery, wound care, pulmonary and infectious disease care. Bethesda recently eliminated a 20-bed unit for adult psychiatric services, and a 20-bed skilled nursing unit. Currently, at Bethesda, the sickest patients are placed in a 10-bed critical care unit. The hospital also operates a 12- bed surgical intensive care unit, an eight-bed medical intensive care unit, and 30 and 25-bed telemetry units. Bethesda was planning to open a 20-bed extension to the telemetry unit, all in private rooms, in January 2002. If an open heart surgery program is established, Bethesda, will add an eight-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit to care post-operatively for the patients. Bethesda offered to condition its CON on the provision of 3% of total open heart surgeries to Medicaid and 3% of total open heart surgeries to indigent patients. Bethesda's estimated total project cost is $4 million, $1.7 million for equipment, and $2.24 for construction. Bethesda will receive assistance from Orlando Regional Medical Center in training personnel and developing protocols for an open heart program. At Orlando Regional, a statutory teaching hospital, the number of open heart cases ranges from 1,300 to 1,600 a year. Bethesda has a contract with a physicians' group to provide a board-certified cardiovascular surgeon to serve as medical director for the open heart program. AHCA’s position is that the Bethesda application is "approvable" but, of the Palm Beach County applicants, less desirable than that of BRCH. By contrast, Bethesda's experts emphasized (1) the absence of any overlap with the Lawnwood market; (2) the greater need for a new program, based on the volume of cases, in Palm Beach County than elsewhere in the District; (3) the size, growth, and age of the population within Bethesda's market area, and (4) the ability of Bethesda to enhance access for underserved groups, particularly Medicaid patients. Boca Raton Community Hospital BRCH is licensed for 394 beds. Located in southern Palm Beach County, close to the Broward County line, BRCH is from eight to nine miles south of Delray and approximately 15 miles north of North Ridge Medical Center (North Ridge), in adjacent Broward County. On average, the drive from BRCH to Delray takes 20 minutes. The drive from BRCH to North Ridge takes about 25 minutes. Founded in the late 1960's, BRCH operates as a not-for- profit corporation. BRCH has a staff of 750 physicians and 1,600 employees. Services at BRCH include cardiology, a 10-bed Level II neonatal intensive care unit, hematology, nephrology, pulmonology, radiology, nuclear medicine, and neurology. If approved and issued a CON for adult open heart surgery, BRCH will build a new facility for the program, including two new cath labs, an electrophysiology lab and 12 intensive care beds. In the CON, the estimated construction cost was $16.5 million and the estimated equipment cost was $2.7 million of the $20 million estimated for the total project. BRCH agreed to having conditions on its CON (1) to provide 5% of open heart cases in year two to uninsured patients, (2) to establish an outreach program to increase the utilization of open heart services among the uninsured, and (3) to relinquish the CON if it fails to perform at least 350 open heart surgery procedures a year in any two consecutive years after the end of the second year of operations. AHCA determined that it should change its initial position opposing the approval of the BRCH application to one of approval because of (1) the large Medicare population in the service area; (2) the volume of emergency room heart attack patients; (3) the district out-migration for services primarily to North Ridge; (4) the large, well-developed interventional cardiology program; and (5) the not-for-profit organizational structure. When AHCA decided to support the approval of the BRCH application, it did so, in part, based on erroneous data. The cath lab volume was assumed to be approximately 1,800 caths a year, as compared to the actual volume of 667 caths for the year ending March 2001. Having considered the corrected data, AHCA’s expert described BRCH’s application as significantly less compelling, but still preferable to that of Bethesda. BRCH is the largest hospital in number of beds in Florida which does not have an open heart surgery program. AHCA also responded favorably to identified "cultural" access issues, described as underservice to demographic groups, based on race, gender, and class. BRCH presented a plan to equip a mobile unit to provide diagnostic screenings and primary care in underserved areas. Pre-Hearing Stipulations The parties stipulated that all of the applications met the statutory requirements concerning the application content and filing procedures of Sections 408.037 and 408.039, Florida Statutes (1999), and Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code. Martin Memorial, Bethesda, and BRCH have a history of providing quality care. See Subsection 408.035(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1999). There are no existing outpatient, ambulatory or home care services which can be used as alternatives to inpatient adult open heart and angioplasty services. See Subsection 408.035(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1999). Martin Memorial and Bethesda have sufficient available funds for capital and operating expenses required for their proposed open heart surgery programs. See Subsection 408.035(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1999). Martin Memorial complied with the requirements related to costs and methods of construction, and equipment for the proposed project. Except for the contention that it omitted $1,687,180 in fixed equipment costs and that the proposed construction project is excessively large and expensive, the parties stipulated that BRCH reasonably estimated construction and equipment costs, including costs and methods of energy provision. See Subsection 408.035(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1999). The parties agreed that Subsections 408.035(1)(p), and 408.035(2)(e), Florida Statutes, related to nursing home beds, are not at issue at in this proceeding. If Bethesda, BRCH, and Martin Memorial can recruit the necessary, competent nursing and surgical staff, they will meet the requirements of Rule 59C-1.033(3), (4)(b), (4)(c), and (5)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Adult open heart surgery services are currently available to District 9 residents within the two-hour travel standard of Rule 59C-1.033(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Bethesda, BRCH, and Martin Memorial are accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), assuring quality as required by Rule 59C-1.033(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The parties agreed that if Bethesda, BRCH, and Martin Memorial can recruit the necessary nursing and surgical personnel, their programs would meet the requirements of Rule 59C-1.033(4)(b), (4)(c), (5)(b), and (5)(c), Florida Administrative Code, except that JFK and Lawnwood did not agree that the applicants satisfied the requirements related to cardiovascular surgeons. Martin Memorial will be able to obtain perfusionist services, as required by Rule 59C-1.033(5)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code. Bethesda and BRCH projected reasonable staffing patterns, in their CON schedules 6A, given projected census levels, although the ability to recruit staff and adequacy of projected salaries are at issue. The rule criteria related to pediatric open heart surgery are not applicable to this proceeding. Disputed Statutory and Rule Criteria The following statutory criteria and applicable in this case: Subsections 408.035(1)(a), (b), (c) - for comparison; (e), (f), (g), (h) - related to funding for BRCH, and related to staff recruitment and salaries; (i), (j), (k), (l), (m) - for Bethesda, and related to the size, scope, and fixed equipment cost for BRCH, (n), and (o); and Subsections 408.035(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes. The criteria in Rules 59C-1.030, and of Rule 59C-1.033(5)(b) - related to staffing, except as stipulated - are at issue. The parties have also raised the issue of whether AHCA is consistent in applying its agency rules related to open heart cases. The District 9 health plan contains two preferences for open heart applicant hospitals, the first for hospitals with established cardiac cath programs, the second for applicants with a documented commitment to serve patients regardless of their ability to pay or county of residence. All of the applicants have established diagnostic cardiac cath programs and related cardiology services. During the cardiac cath procedure, a catheter is inserted into a cardiac chamber to diagnose heart disease. During a therapeutic cardiac cath procedure, or angioplasty, the catheter with a balloon-tip is inserted into a coronary artery and inflated to open blockages. The latter requires open heart surgery back-up in case a vessel is ruptured and thus, an open heart surgery certificate of need. Martin Memorial operates the largest cardiac cath program at a hospital in Florida which does not also offer open heart surgery. At Martin Memorial, 1,885 inpatient and outpatient caths were performed in 1999, 1,770 in 2000, and 1,286 in the first nine months of 2001. Cardiac caths are only performed at the Stuart facility. Non-invasive cardiology services began in the 1970's at Martin Memorial. A CON to establish the first cardiac cath lab was issued in 1989, and a second, CON-exempt cath lab opened in 1998. Martin Memorial also offers pacemaker implants and peripheral angioplasties to eliminate clots in other areas of the body, for example, in the legs, electrocardiography, echocardiography, stress tests, and cardiac rehabilitation. Neither electrophysiology studies nor defibrillator implants are performed at Martin Memorial. Martin Memorial has an open staff of cardiologists, meaning that its cath lab is available for use by any of the invasive cardiologists on staff. The facilities include two cardiac cath procedure rooms, a control room for the laboratory, a five-bed holding room and a two-bay inpatient recovery area. Bethesda also has an established cardiac cath program with an open staff. Seventeen cathing physicians were listed on the Bethesda roster for the month of March 2001. Of those, five were also the only cardiologists allowed to perform caths at the closed lab at JFK. Some of these cardiologists are permitted to perform emergency angioplasties at Bethesda. Bethesda has, at least, two cardiovascular surgeons on staff. From 1995 to 1998, the volume of cardiac caths at Bethesda increased over 60%, from 133 to 213. For the 12 months ending August 31, 2000, Bethesda cardiologists performed 428 caths. For the 12 months ending September 30, 2001, the cath volume was 506 cases. Currently, cath procedures at Bethesda are performed in one lab with recently upgraded digital equipment. As part of the planned expansion of the hospital, the existing lab will be relocated and a second one added. Permanent pacemakers are implanted at Bethesda, but internal cardioverter defibrillator procedures, electrophysiology, and table studies are not performed. Cardiac cath services, at BRCH, started in 1987. Two cath labs with state-of-the-art digital equipment are used. In the 12 months ending March 31, 2001, there were 667 inpatient and outpatient caths performed at BRCH. Currently, cardiac services at BRCH are the largest source of admissions, approximately 20% of total admissions. The available services include echocardiography, tilt table studies, electrocardiography, stress tests, cardiac wellness and rehabilitation programs, electrophysiology studies, and internal cardioverter defibrillator implants. Each year, one or two "rescue" or salvage angioplasties are performed in extreme, life- threatening circumstances at BRCH. Forty-nine cardiologists are on the closed "invitation-only" medical staff at BRCH, 47 are board-certified and approximately half are invasive cardiologists. The staff also includes seven electrophysiologists, five of whom are board-certified, and seven thoracic surgeons, five of whom perform open heart surgeries at other hospitals. For the first two years of operating an open heart program, BRCH intends to have a closed program, by virtue of an exclusive contract with a single group of cardiovascular surgeons. Subsection 408.035(1)(a) - district health plan preference for serving patients regardless of county of residence or ability to pay; and Subsection 408.035 (1)(n) - history of and proposed services to Medicaid and indigent patients Martin Memorial, Bethesda, and BRCH will serve patients regardless of residence and, they contend, will enhance access for Medicaid, indigent, charity and/or self-pay patients. Each applicant has offered to care for patients in some of these categories as a condition for CON approval. The proposed conditions, are, for Martin Memorial, 2.4% of total project revenues for charity and 2% of admissions for Medicaid patients. Martin Memorial provides a number of services without charge, including follow-up education to former inpatients to assist them in managing diseases such as asthma, diabetes, congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Obstetric care includes one free home visit by a nurse/midwife to check the health of newborns and mothers. Office space is provided for a free clinic for the "working poor" of Martin County, which receives approximately 10,000 annual visits from a patient base of about 2,000 patients. Over $100,000 a year is provided for an indigent pharmacy program. Combining the outreach services with other charitable contributions, including charity care, Martin Memorial valued "community benefits" at $24 million in 1998, $30.5 million in 2000. When Martin Memorial received an inpatient cardiac cath CON, it agreed to provide a minimum of 2.5% of total cardiac caths to Medicaid patients and 3% to charity care. Due to changes in state regulation, Medicaid and charity care for cardiac caths no longer needs to be reported to the state. That data, representing as it does, the base of patients from which open heart cases will come, is useful in evaluating Martin Memorial's projections. In 1999, seven-tenths of one percent of the patients in Martin Memorial's cath lab were Medicaid and four-tenths of one percent were indigent. In 2000, seven-tenths of one percent were Medicaid and two-tenths of one percent were indigent. Martin's cath lab data indicates that its projected open heart levels of Medicaid and indigent care are not attainable. Bethesda offered a commitment to provide 3% of total open heart cases for Medicaid patients and 3% to indigent patients annually. Historically, Bethesda has cared for a relatively large number of Medicaid, minority, and indigent patients. It is recognized as a disproportionate share provider of Medicaid care under the Florida program and of Medicare under the Federal program. The Palm Beach County Health Department provides approximately $1 million a year to Bethesda for charity care. As a percentage of gross revenue, Bethesda provided 8.8% Medicaid and 3.46% charity care in 1999. Approximately 54% of the charity care is attributable to obstetrics and pediatric services. Bethesda's younger patient base and the number of adult open heart Medicaid cases from Bethesda's service area, 2.4% or 7 cases in the year ending September 2000, raise the issue of its ability to generate sufficient cases to meet the proposed commitment. In 1995, 20 of the 36 total resident Medicaid open heart surgeries were performed at the three providers in District 9, Delray, JFK, and PBGMC. In 1999, when Lawnwood began open heart care, the Medicaid volume at the District providers increased to 51 of the 64 total Medicaid resident cases. In 2000, the four programs treated a net number of 56 of 60 resident Medicaid cases. A program at Bethesda also could reasonably be expected to increase the number of Medicaid and charity cases performed in the District, in volume and by reversing outmigration, but the patients must come from a base of patients with cardiac diagnoses. For the year ending September 2000, in Bethesda's service area, 4.9% of cardiac patients were Medicaid and charity patients combined, 1.6% Medicaid and 3.3% charity. Assuming that the same proportions could be maintained for open heart surgeries, Bethesda cannot achieve 3% Medicaid and, although unlikely, has a chance of reaching 3% charity only in the best case scenario. If approved, BRCH commits to providing 5% of total OHS in the second year to uninsured patients and to establish an outreach program to increase utilization by uninsured patients. BRCH has, over the past three and a half years, established outreach programs, which include having nurses and social workers in schools, providing free physical examinations to children who do not have primary care doctors, and performing echocardiograms for high school athletes, equipping police and fire rescue units with portable defibrillators, and operating mobile units for mammography screenings and vans to transport patients to and from their homes for hospital care. A free dental screening program is operated in conjunction with Nova Southeastern University. BRCH also operates a family medical center approximately seven miles west of the hospital. Recently, the Foundation for BRCH purchased, for $1.8 million, a large bus to equip as a mobile clinic. The mobile diagnostic unit is intended to reach uninsured patients to provide primary care and ultimately open heart surgery care to those who might not otherwise be screened, diagnosed and referred. No information was available and no decisions had been made about the staff and equipment, or service areas for use of the van. Because of the lack of more specific plans, it is impossible to determine whether the outreach effort has any reasonable prospects for success in meeting any unmet need. For the years ending June 1996, 1997, and 1998, BRCH provided six-tenths of one percent, and five-tenths of one percent of gross revenues for charity care. In 2000, BRCH provided one-half of one percent for charity care and, in 2001, twenty-seventh hundreds of a percent. The historical levels do not support the proposed commitment of 5% of open heart surgeries for uninsured patients in the second year of the program. Although worded to apply only to the second year, BRCH's President and CEO testified concerning the condition without limiting it to the second year. In Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc.'s Proposed Recommended Order (Reformatted), filed on July 5, 2002, the condition is described as follows: 49. As conditions of CON approval, Boca will, beginning in the second year of operation of the program and continuing thereafter, provide a minimum of five percent each year of OHS cases to uninsured patients, and establish an outreach program to locate and provide OHS and cardiology services to uninsured patients in Palm Beach County. (Boca Ex. 3 at Schedule C; Pierce, 1899). Boca reasonably decided to focus on the needs of the uninsured, rather than Medicaid patients, because of the low volume of Medicaid patients who require OHS services. (Pierce, 1902). At BRCH, Medicaid and Medicaid health maintenance organization (HMO) care as a percent of total ranged from 1.3% to 1.4% from 1996 through 1998. BRCH projected serving 1.2% to 1.3% open heart Medicaid cases, or four patients in the first year and 1.5% to 1.6%, or seven Medicaid patients in the second year. The projections are consistent with its history although BRCH offered no Medicaid condition. Bethesda and BRCH also claimed not normal circumstances exist in District 9 due to the disparity in open heart care for uninsured and Medicaid patients as compared to the insured. For uninsured residents of Palm Beach County during the twelve months ending June 30, 2000, the use rate was 4.7 per 1000, as compared to 21.8 per 1,000 for insured open heart patients. For angioplasty patients, the insured use rate was 38.2, but the uninsured rate was only 8.9. Assuming that the use rates should not be so different, the discrepancy in access for the uninsured is significant and unfortunate but was not shown to be a not normal circumstance in the health care delivery system. The applicants' proposals, unlikely as they are to meet even the proposed conditions, are inadequate to increase access materially for the uninsured. Comparisons of the level of Medicaid provided statewide to that provided in District 9 without consideration of other factors, including age and income levels, were not useful in analyzing access. Assertions that any discrepancy in care for potential Medicaid open heart patients constitutes a not normal circumstance are not substantiated by this evidence. Subsection 408.035(1)(b) and (2)(b) - availability, quality of care, efficiency, appropriateness, accessibility, extent of utilization and adequacy of like and existing facilities in District Nine In 2006, the population in District 9 is projected to reach 1.2 million people, of which approximately 992,378 will reside in Palm Beach County, 119,573 in Martin County, 181,406 in St. Lucie County, 106,790 in Indian River County, and 31,140 in Okeechobee County. In District 9, throughout Florida, and in the United States, heart disease is the leading cause of death. In 2000, heart disease was the cause in 522 of 1,560 total deaths in Martin County, and 4,337 of 12,795 total deaths in Palm Beach County. From 1995 to 2000, the number of Florida residents having open heart surgeries increased 15.1%. During the same period of time, the number of District 9 resident cases, regardless of where the surgeries were performed, increased from 3,119, to 3,938, an increase of 755 OHS cases, or 24%. Palm Beach County residents represented 427 of the 755 increase, and 2,633 of the total of 3,938 resident cases. The distribution of the remaining 1,305 District resident cases by county was as follows: 597 from St. Lucie, 339 from Martin, 269 from Indian River, and 100 from Okeechobee County. More recent data, however, indicates trends towards a leveling off or even decline in the number, but an increase in the complexity of open heart procedures. Some experts describe open heart volumes having reached a "plateau" in the United States, in Florida, and in District 9. Last year, the number of open heart surgeries in the United States declined 22%. The statewide volume of cases was 32,199 in 1996, 33,507 in 1997, 34,013 in 1998, and 32,097 in 1999. At District 9 hospitals, open heart volumes were 1,670 in 1994, 1,841 in 1995, 2,152 in 1996, 2,407 in 1997, 2,527 in 1998, 2,656 in 1999, and 2,650 in 2000. Cardiac Catheterizations and Angioplasties The major reason given for the stable and declining open heart volume is the increase in the utilization of angioplasty, or therapeutic cardiac cathing, an alternative which costs less and is less invasive. Angioplasty procedures increased from 1995-2000, by over 2,500 cases for District 9 residents, and over 2,600 cases in District 9 hospitals, from 2,104 cases in 1995, to 4,714 in 2000. Among the procedures generally referred to as angioplasties are percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTCA) or balloon angioplasty, percutaneous transluminal coronary rotational atherectomy (PTCRA), and the insertion of scaffolding- like devices, called stents, to prevent re-occlusion of coronary arteries. In Florida, diagnostic cardiac caths may be performed at facilities which do not have angioplasty and open heart surgery programs, but angioplasties must be performed, except in rare emergency circumstances, only at hospitals which are licensed to provide open heart services, in case back-up surgery is needed. Lawnwood Regional Lawnwood is located in Fort Pierce, in St. Lucie County, which is second to Palm Beach County in population and in District 9 resident open heart cases. Lawnwood is owned by a subsidiary of HCA, the Hospital Corporation of America, formerly known as Columbia. HCA is a for-profit, investor-owned corporation which owns and operates approximately 200 hospitals in the United States. A $17 million addition at Lawnwood, designed for the open heart program, includes two dedicated operating rooms and a 12-bed intensive care unit. The Lawnwood program has a full-time staff of two surgeons and one additional surgeon who divides his time between Lawnwood and PBGMC. Lawnwood, having opened its program early in 1999, is not considered a mature program. In addition, Lawnwood has had some difficulties with accreditation and disputes with cardiologists. Lawnwood reported one open heart case in the first quarter of 1999, and 143 or 144 for the year. In calendar year 2000, between 330 to 340 open heart surgeries were performed at Lawnwood. In calendar year 2001, the volume was between 333 and 336 cases. Depending on the source of the data, the volume at Lawnwood was reported to be as high as 364 for the twelve months ending September 30, 2000; in a range from 336 to 396 for the twelve months ending March 31, 2001; and up to 412 for the twelve months ending July 2001. The variances result from seasonal patient utilization, and from AHCA’s use, for the fixed need pool, of the most current available data which it receives from the various local health councils. That data is submitted on handwritten or typed forms which are not uniform across districts. Subsequently, the hospitals provide electronic data tapes directly to AHCA, which if properly decoded, should provide more accurate statistics. While there may be variances either way, in this case, the lower volumes for Lawnwood were derived from the more reliable electronic tapes. Based on that data and the testimony of the cardiac surgeon who is the director of the program at Lawnwood, the annual volume of open heart surgeries was approximately 330 in 2000, and 348 in 2001. The new rule, adopted on January 24, 2002, reduces the minimum number required for existing programs to 300 a year, or 25 adult operations a month. The number of angioplasties performed at Lawnwood increased from 465 in 1999, to 845 in 2000. Palm Beach Gardens Medical Center South of the four relatively small northern counties in District 9, PBGMC has 204 beds located in northern Palm Beach County. It is a subsidiary of Tenet Healthsystem Hospitals (Tenet). Adult open heart surgery has been available at PBGMC since 1983. The surgeries are typically performed in two or three of the 11 operating rooms, although five are equipped to handle open heart cases. PBGMC has 94 telemetry beds, and 32 intensive care beds, eight designated for cardiovascular intensive care patients. PBGMC has four cardiac cath labs and separate electrophysiology labs. The medical staff of approximately 400 physicians includes about 200 cardiologists, 24 invasive cardiologists and seven cardiac surgeons. The number of open heart cases at PBGMC was 700 in 1994, 801 in 1995, 913 in 1996, 1,028 in 1997, 1,045 in 1998, 1,124 in 1999, 940 in 2000, and 871 in 2001. The number of angioplasties increased from 552 in 1994, to 1,019 in 1997, to 1,431 in 2000. JFK JFK, which has 387 beds, is located roughly in the center of Palm Beach County, in the City of Lake Worth. Like Lawnwood, JFK is an HCA's subsidiary, having been purchased by that corporation in 1995. Open heart services and cardiac cath services began simultaneously at JFK in 1987. JFK has three open heart operating rooms. JFK, after a major expansion, has a separate entrance to its three cardiac cath laboratories, a dedicated electrophysiology suite, for treatment of arrhythmias, and 17- patient holding area. JFK provides all cardiac services, except heart transplants. The average age of patients at JFK is 74 years old. The medical staff of 504 board-certified or board- eligible physicians includes 25 cardiologists, five invasive cardiologists, two electrophysiologists, and three cardiac surgeons. JFK has recently accepted applications from but not yet extended privileges to three additional cardiovascular surgeons. Volumes of open heart cases at JFK were, with some variances depending on the data source, approximately 428 in 1994, 434 in 1995, 630 in 1996, 674 in 1997, 711 in 1998, 613 in 1999, 621 in 2000, and 610 in 2001. The number of angioplasties ranged from 709 in 1994, to 1,152 in 1997, to 1,281 in 2000. Delray Delray, with 343 beds, in Delray Beach, is the trauma center for southern Palm Beach County. Open heart care began at Delray in 1986. The surgeries are currently performed in three of ten, but soon to be a total of twelve operating rooms with shelled-in spaces set aside for two more. Patients recover in a 15-bed surgical intensive care unit. The Delray medical staff of over 600 physicians has close to 60 cardiologists, including 15 invasive cardiologists and six cardiovascular surgeons. Delray has three cath lab rooms and seven bays for holding patients pre- and post-procedure. For the years 1994 through 2001, open heart volumes at Delray were 542, 606, 609, 705, 771, 758, 759, and 738, respectively. During the same period of time, the annual number of angioplasty procedures increased from 591 in 1994, to 810 in 1997, to 929 in 2000. The existing CON-planned and approved programs in the District are well distributed geographically and allocated appropriately based on population. Considering the declining utilization, the like and existing open heart surgery programs are available and accessible. Subsection 408.035(1)(f) - services that are not reasonably and economically accessible in adjoining areas Over 30% of District 9 resident open heart cases are performed in other districts, the vast majority at North Ridge in District 10 (Broward County). The district outmigration for a service when excessive or difficult can indicate access or quality concerns and constitute a not normal circumstance for approval of a new program. In this case, with adequate available services in District 9 and its close proximity, the outmigration to North Ridge, which is 15 miles or 25 minutes from BRCH is not a not normal circumstance. There is also substantial overlap in the medical staff at both hospitals which allows continuity of care for patients despite transfers. The argument that families, particularly an older spouse, will necessarily have to drive farther to visit the patient is rejected, since that depends on where in the district the person resides not on the distances between hospitals. North Ridge has 391 licensed beds, with 260 to 270 acute care beds in use. At North Ridge, cardiovascular surgeons usually use three OHS operating rooms, although a fourth is also available. Open heart patients recover in a six-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. The reported volumes of open hearts at North Ridge have been from 1994 through 2001, respectively, 864, 935, 893, 826, 882, 890, 905, and 795. The total number of open heart cases in District 10 has been declining since 1998. The volume of angioplasties at North Ridge increased from 793 in 1994, to 829 in 1997, to 1,155 in 2000, consistent with a rising District 10 use rate from 2.95 to 3.66 over the same period of time. The staff at North Ridge includes 107 cardiologists, 27 interventional cardiologists, and 17 cardiovascular surgeons, many of whom also regularly perform open heart surgeries at Holy Cross, which is approximately a mile south of North Ridge in Fort Lauderdale. At Holy Cross, which also has established referral networks from District 9, open heart volumes declined from a high of 753 in 1998 to 693 in 2000. All of the open heart services proposed by the applicants are reasonably available in adjoining areas, in Districts 10 and 11 to the south and in the other districts to the north. Subsection 408.035(1)(c) - comparisons of quality; and Subsection 408.035(1)(e) - joint, cooperative or shared resources; and Subsection 408.035(1)(g), (h), and (k) - need for research, educational and training programs or facilities for medical and health care professionals; and Subsection 408.035(1)(h) and Rule 59C-1.033 - recruitment, training and salaries for staff The parties stipulated that the applicants have a history of providing quality care. Martin Memorial was accredited with commendation by the JCAHO in 1997, which is now called accreditation without Type I Recommendations. That was followed, in July 2001, with a score of 93 on survey items with some follow-up improvements required related to patient assessment and nutrition. Martin Memorial offers internships, and residencies for training non-physician medical personnel from Barry University, Indian River Community College, and Florida Atlantic University. The cancer center at Martin Memorial is affiliated with the Moffitt Center. Despite the absence of an open heart program, Martin Memorial has participated in clinical trials of cardiac drugs. The Shands Healthcare System of nine affiliated hospitals, including two research and teaching hospitals, is the model for the relationship proposed with Martin Memorial. The partnerships are intended to upgrade the care available in community hospitals and to establish, for complex cases, referral networks for the Shands teaching hospitals. Shands has already satisfied itself that Martin Memorial meets its due diligence test for the quality of its existing program and philosophical compatibility. If Martin Memorial's CON is approved, Shands will assist in training staff for the program. Initially, the program will have one cardiovascular surgeon, a University of Florida medical school faculty member, in Martin County. When that surgeon is ill or on vacation, others from the University of Florida will be available. The logistics of the plan raises questions about the adequacy of coverage to meet the 24-hour requirements of Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code. In the JCAHO survey process, Bethesda received a score of 97, as a result of its survey in June 2000, and was accredited for the maximum allowable time, three years. Personnel for a Bethesda program can be appropriately trained at Orlando Regional, a statutory teaching hospital with a high volume open heart program. In June 2000, BRCH received a JCAHO score of 96. BRCH maintains a scholarship program for new nurses making a two-year commitment, and an on-site educational department with a preceptorship for training operating room and emergency room nurses. Nursing students from Florida Atlantic University (FAU), which is located across Glades Road from BRCH, rotate at BRCH. FAU is in the process of establishing a medical school. There is a severe shortage of nurses in the United States, in Florida, and in District 9. All of the hospitals in District 9 have resorted to highly competitive and innovative recruitment and retention strategies, including international recruiting, signing bonuses, child care and, of course, rising salaries and benefits. The demand is greater and shortages more severe in highly specialized areas, such as critical care, telemetry and open heart surgery nursing. The average age of nurses has also increased to 46 or 47 years old, while enrollment in nursing schools and the number of nursing school professors have declined. All of the applicants concede that recruiting and retaining nurses for new open heart program will be a challenge. The likely results are a loss of experienced nurses from existing programs, an increase in total health care costs, an increase in vacancies, and, at least temporarily a decline in the quality of experienced nursing care in existing open heart programs. At this time, there is no evidence that declining open heart utilization will eventually alleviate the shortage of experienced nurses. It has, so far, only eased the need to resort as frequently to other extreme and expensive alternatives, including pay overtime, contracting with private agencies, and bringing in traveling nurses. Subsection 408.035(1)(m) - size, scope and fixed equipment cost at BRCH; Subsection 408.035(2)(c) - alternatives to new construction; and Subsection 408.035(1) (h) - funding for BRCH BRCH plans to construct a 74,000 square-foot cardiac care facility, which will include two open heart operating rooms and two cardiac cath labs, an electrophysiology lab, 12 cardiovascular intensive care beds, and 18 cardiac cath lab bays. Only 18,568 square feet are attributable to the open heart operating rooms and cardiovascular intensive care unit which compares favorably with Bethesda's estimate of 17,759 square feet for the same functions. It is not possible, therefore, to conclude that the size of the BRCH project is excessive as compared to that proposed by Bethesda. BRCH underestimated the cost for fixed equipment for the open heart project by approximately $1.6 million. That omission resulted in understated estimates of depreciation by approximately $275,000. The total project cost for BRCH is approximately $2.2 million when almost $2 million in omitted equipment costs is added to the original estimate of $20 million. All pending capital projects, as shown on Schedule 2 of the BRCH application, total $54 million. With combined cash and investments of $160 million, the BRCH foundation has sufficient funds for the hospital's projects. Although BRCH earned profits of $6.6 million and $7.3 million in 1998 and 1999, respectively, the hospital lost $30 million from operations due to billing and collection errors in 2000. BRCH has a donor who has stated a willingness to donate $20 million for the cardiac care center. BRCH has the funds necessary to build the facility. With Medicare capital cost reimbursement completely phased out, there is insufficient evidence of a direct impact on health care costs based on this proposed capital expenditure. Subsection 408.035(1)(i) - short and long term financial feasibility Martin Memorial initially projected that its program would perform 360 open heart surgeries in year one and 405 in year two. As a result of changes in the use rate, Martin Memorial lowered its second year projection to 375 surgeries while increasing staffing levels. Even if projected open heart surgery revenues of $264,000 in the second year decline in proportion to expected lower utilization, estimated angioplasty revenues of $468,000, are sufficient to make up the deficit and to keep the combined program financially feasible in the short and long term. Bethesda projected volumes of 165 open heart surgeries in the first year and 270 in the second year. Assuming Bethesda's revenues are 90% of the district average, the combined net profit for open heart and angioplasty services is reasonably expected to be approximately $750,000 in the second year operations. The project is profitable, therefore, financially feasible in the short and long term. BRCH's expert projected volumes of 308 open heart surgeries and 289 angioplasties in the first year, and 451 open heart surgeries and 422 angioplasties in the second year. If utilization projections are correct, then BRCH will receive incremental net income of $1.6 million from the open heart surgery program and $825,000 from the angioplasty services. Factoring in claims that the Medicare case weight was overstated and depreciation underestimated, the BRCH project is, nevertheless, financially feasible for the short and long term. Typically, any open heart surgery program that can reach volumes in the range of 200 to 250 cases, will be financially feasible. The establishment of an open heart program also has a "halo effect," for the hospital, attracting more patients to the cardiac cath labs and other related cardiology services. Open heart surgery and angioplasty tend to be profitable, generating revenue which hospitals use to offset losses from other services. Subsection 408.035(1)(j) - needs of HMOs All of the applicants will enter into contracts with, but none is a health maintenance organization. Subsection 408.035(1)(l) - probable impact of fostering competition to promote quality assurance and cost-effectiveness Hospitals with higher volumes of open heart surgeries and angioplasties usually have higher quality as measured by lower mortality rates and fewer complications. The open heart surgery rule, in effect at the time the applications were filed, established a minimum volume of 350 annual admissions for existing providers. In the rule as amended on January 24, 2002, the minimum volume for existing programs was reduced to 300. The divisor in the formula for determining need, which represents the average size of a program in the district, was 350 prior to amendment and 500 subsequently. The minimum and average volumes in the rule set, in effect, the protected range for existing programs, not the optimal size, or "cut point" at which outcomes are worse below and better above. According to the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) the evidence is clear that outcomes are better if an individual performs at least 75 procedures at a high volume center with more than 400 cases. The ACC/AHA guidelines indicate, although more controversial and less clearly established, that acceptable outcomes may be achieved if the individual operator performs at least 75 procedures in centers with volumes from 200 to 400 cases. Because the relationship between higher volumes and better outcomes is continuous and linear, and because research showing the benefits of primary angioplasty with or without open heart surgery back-up is preliminary and limited, the position of the ACC/AHA is, in summary, as follows: The proliferation of small angioplasty or small surgical programs to support such angioplasty programs is strongly discouraged. (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Vol. 37, no. 8 June 15, 2001, pp. 2239xvii (Tenet Exhibit 5)) An open heart program at Martin Memorial will redirect cases that would otherwise have gone to Lawnwood, PBGMC, and JFK. The proposed Martin Memorial Service area overlaps that of Lawnwood in southern St. Lucie County, an area which generates one quarter of the open heart cases at Lawnwood. Lawnwood is reasonably expected to lose 56 open heart cases a year with total volume going down below 300, resulting in loss of $1.8 million, or 20% of its total revenues. Lawnwood would have unacceptably low volumes threatening the quality of the open heart program. PBGMC, as a result of a new program at Martin Memorial, will lose approximately 170 and 180 open heart cases annually and an equal number of angioplasties reducing its open heart volume to approximately 700 a year. The financial loss would range from $4 to $5 million a year, as compared to total net income which was between $20 and $30 million a year for past three years. PBGMC would not suffer an adverse impact sufficient to threaten either the quality or the financial feasibility of the open heart program or total hospital operations. JFK, which currently receives most of the angioplasty referrals from Martin Memorial, is expected to lose from 25 to 30 open heart cases, and 65 to 70 angioplasties each year during the first two years of a Martin Memorial program. The estimated financial loss to JFK is $1.7 million, a significant detriment when compared to $2.8 million in net income from operations in calendar year 2000. Approval of open heart program at Bethesda will adversely affect case volumes at JFK and Delray. Bethesda projected that, in its first year, 75% of its cases would have gone to Delray and 25% to JFK, and that by the third year, the split would be even at 50% from Delray and 50% from JFK. JFK, depending on the approach to the impact analysis, will lose from 40 to 60 open heart cases in the first year, from 90 to 110 in the second year, and from 115 to 170 in the third year of a program at Bethesda. The volumes of lost angioplasties is expected to be slightly higher. The resulting combined open heart and angioplasty financial loss is $6.6 million, far greater than the significant detriment expected from a Martin Memorial program alone. The annual volume of open heart cases at JFK would be approximately 400 to 500, assuming flat not continued declining utilization. If Bethesda offered the service, Delray's open heart volumes would decline by 124 cases in the first year and by 248 cases in the third year of operations, decreasing total volume to 500 or 600 annual surgeries. Delray had a net income from operations of approximately $24.7 million in 2000, which would indicate that neither quality nor financial stability would be significantly adversely affected. If an open heart program is approved for BRCH, the volumes of cases at Delray and North Ridge will decline. Delray would be expected to lose 163 open heart cases and 235 in years one and two, respectively, and equal numbers of caths and angioplasties, resulting in annual open heart cases reduced from the low 700s to approximately 500 cases. Delray's pre-tax revenue was $39 million in 2001. In terms of quality and financial stability, Delray can withstand the adverse impact of a new program at BRCH. North Ridge would lose approximately 124 open heart cases in year one and 178 in year two, and similar numbers of caths, reducing open heart volumes from the upper 700s to approximately 600 annual cases. North Ridge's pre-tax income was $21 million for the year ending May 31, 2001. It appears that North Ridge could, even with the adverse impact of BRCH, maintain a quality, financially viable open heart program. Subsection 408.035(l) - probable impact on costs The applicants, all not-for-profit corporations, contend that the fact that District 9 has only for-profit open heart hospitals affects charges and is a not normal circumstance for the approval of one or more not-for-profit. District 9 is the only district in Florida in which all open heart providers are for-profit corporations. Statewide, not-for-profit open heart hospitals charge 31% less than for-profit. Martin Memorial's CON proposal includes a charge structure below that at existing programs. Bethesda's planned charges are 10% less than the District 9 average for open heart and angioplasty services. BRCH is the applicant which is most likely to increase competition in District 9, based on the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). The HHI's measurement of competition in a market used by economists frequently to analyze anti-trust issues. Charges are not a factor in up to 75% of open heart/angioplasty cases reimbursed by payors, such as Medicare, at set flat rates. In approximately 10% of cases, including complex "outlier" cases exceeding the range for flat rate reimbursement and for other payors on a percent-of-charges basis, charges are not irrelevant. But, the evidence to demonstrate lower charges were applicable to patients of the same severity was questionable. Subsection 408.035(1)(o) - continuum of care There is insufficient evidence the any applicant is preferable based on its ability to promote a continuum of care in a multilevel system. Subsection 408.035(2)(a) - alternatives to inpatient services There are no alternatives to inpatient services for open heart surgery and angioplasty patients. Subsection 408.035(2)(d) - patients who will experience serious problems in the absence of the proposed new service The applicants and AHCA determined that new open heart surgery programs are needed mainly to provide emergency or "primary" angioplasty to patients suffering heart attacks (acute myocardial infections). Primary angioplasty is an alternative to "clot busting" medications, or thrombolytics, and to open heart surgery. Performed on an emergency basis, the three different treatments are used to restore blood flow before heart muscle dies. Because "time is muscle," patients benefit only if treated within a relatively short time after the onset of symptoms. The goal is 90 minutes from door-to-balloon for angioplasty. The decision to treat a patient with a particular therapy is based on a number of factors assessed during triage. Paramedics in consultation with ER doctors at the receiving hospital frequently begin triage and administering medications and oxygen in ambulances equipped with sophisticated diagnostic equipment. As the statistical data demonstrates, angioplasty, whether scheduled or emergency, is increasingly becoming the preferred therapy. Some studies have shown improved outcomes, higher survival rates and fewer complications, from primary angioplasty as compared to thrombolytics. Comparisons have not been made over extended periods of time, and the apparent benefits of angioplasty have not been duplicated in community hospitals as compared to clinical trials in high volume research centers. Estimates of the number of people who could benefit from the availability of angioplasty services at the applicants vary based on the number of elderly in the service area, the number of non-traumatic chest pain ER visits, delays in transfers of emergency patients, and the number of patients being transferred to existing providers for angioplasties or open heart surgeries. Martin Memorial selected five patients as examples of those who could be served in an open heart program at Martin Memorial. The anecdotal evidence of transfer "delays" is insufficient to demonstrate bed unavailability or capacity constraints. Martin Memorial-Stuart and Martin Memorial South transferred 240 heart attack patients to open heart surgery hospitals. Only 18 of the emergency heart attack patients who presented at the Martin Memorial ER were transferred from the ER. Approximately ten patients a year are so unstable that an intra- aortic balloon pump is required during transfer. Martin Memorial presented evidence of delays of two hours or more in transfers of 84 patients from its cath labs to open heart surgery hospitals. The transfer records, created for subsequent certificate of need litigation, were of questionable probative value. The case studies were inadequate to establish whether "delays" were reasonable or not. Factors such as physician consultation time, time to stabilize a patient for transfer and the assumed travel time seem to have been included in the time periods. Bethesda transferred 270 patients for cardiac care from October 1999 through September 2000. Thirty patients were transferred, from November 2000 to July 2001, for angioplasties or open heart surgery after having cardiac caths at Bethesda. Bethesda failed to establish that transfers were delayed due to capacity problems at existing hospitals because emergency patients were not classified separately, and the causes of the time lapses were not identified. Of the applicants, BRCH has the busiest ER, with 50,000 to 52,000 annual visits compared to approximately 48,000 at the two Martin Memorial locations combined. BRCH admitted 439 heart attack patients through its ER during the year ending June 30, 2000. The majority of patients are treated with thrombolytics at BRCH. BRCH transfers approximately one emergency heart attack patient a week on average, or from 30 to 50 a year, for interventional cardiac procedures. BRCH's presentation of evidence of delays in transfers was flawed. The data was collected and used only for litigation, and was incomplete. Some patient records were lost and others were deleted due to inaccurate data. Of the applicants, BRCH is located in an area with the largest percentage of the population age 65 and older, approximately 35%, as compared to 24% in Martin Memorial's service area. Agency Consistency Martin Memorial, through expert witness testimony, compared its situation to that of Brandon, a hospital in AHCA District 6, which was issued an open heart surgery CON in 2001. The expert noted that Martin Memorial and Brandon are both in five county health planning districts, and that they are 19 and from 15 to 17 miles, respectively, from the nearest open heart provider. Three of the counties in District 6 have open heart programs, including Hillsborough County where Brandon is located, as compared to two District 9 counties, St. Lucie and Palm Beach, but not Martin. The Martin Memorial primary service area projected population is 238,861 for 2004, 24.1% aged 65 and older. The Brandon service area population projection is 309,000 for 2004, with 10.5% aged 65 and older. Brandon has 255 beds, Martin Memorial-Stuart has 236. Brandon had 53,000 emergency room visits, and Martin Memorial, at both locations, had 48,503 in 1999. Before defaulting to zero, the numerical formula yielded a need for 3.27 additional open heart programs in District 6 as compared to 3.9 in District 9. Other specific comparisons favorable to Martin Memorial included the number of heart attack patients presenting at its ER, cath lab volumes, patient transfers for open heart and angioplasty procedures. Among others, there are several significant distinguishing facts in Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 00-0481CON, (R.O. Mar. 30, 3001, F.O. Oct. 17, 2001) aff'd per curiam sub nom, University Community Hospital v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 1DO1-3592, et al. (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 19, 2002), the Brandon case. In that case, the two existing providers performing fewer than 350 cases a year, Blake Medical Center, and Manatee Memorial Hospital, both in Manatee County, were mature programs located 40 miles from Brandon with no service area overlap. By contrast, Lawnwood which is not a mature program and, therefore, has not reached its potential volume, is 20 miles from Martin Memorial, and has an overlapping service area. Martin Memorial's ER volume and the number of transfers from its ERs are the combined experience from two locations. The more accurate comparison is 27,000 ER visits at Martin Memorial-Stuart to 53,000 at Brandon. Emergency heart attack patients presenting at Martin Memorial South would continue to require transfers for primary angioplasty. Finally, the decision in Brandon was based, in large part, on transportation difficulties, inadequate interfacility ambulances and traffic congestion, which are not factors in District 9. Factually, the case of Halifax Hospital Medical Center, d/b/a Halifax Medical Center v. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al., Case No. 95-0742 (AHCA Jan. 14, 1997) is also distinguishable. The applicant could have no effect on the low volume providers located 80 miles to the north. That was one not normal circumstance. Need existed because of another not normal circumstance, i.e., capacity constraints at the only other provider in the same primary service area. In Oak Hill Hospital v. AHCA, Case No. 00-3216CON (R.O. Oct. 4, 2001, F.O. Jan. 22, 2002), appeal dismissed sub nom Hernando HMA, Inc. v. HCA Services of Florida, Inc., Case No. 1DO2-854 (Fla. 1st DCA June 6, 2002), the two approved applicants were in separate counties which constituted entirely separate health care markets. Neither applicant would adversely affect the low volume providers. After the Administrative Law Judge recommended approval of the Citrus County applicant, AHCA, engaging in what appears to be a comparative review of the two remaining applicants from Hernando County, approved a second applicant from the same district at the same time. Some facts are similar to those in this case: The average drive time between hospitals was 30 minutes; transfers and admissions procedures required additional time; there was a recognition of increasing preferences for reperfusion of heart muscle using primary angioplasty; patients and families experience stress and anxiety as a result of transfers. Institution-specific issues included the transfer of 600 cardiac patients by ambulance from Oak Hill, the size of the cardiology and cardiac cath programs (1,641 caths in 1999), the larger elderly population in the service area, and the hospital's size.
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 denying Certificate of Need Application Number 9248 filed by BRCH, Certificate of Need Application Number 9249 filed by Martin Memorial, and Certificate of Need Application Number 9250 filed by Bethesda. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Sebring Building, Suite 310K St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lori C. Desnick, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire David Prescott, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 W. David Watkins, Esquire R. L. Caleen, Jr., Esquire Watkins & Caleen, P.A. 1725 Mahan Drive, Suite 201 Post Office Box 15828 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5828 H. Darrell White, Esquire William B. Wiley, Esquire McFarlain & Cassedy, P.A. 305 South Gadsden Street Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Paul H. Amundsen, Esquire Amundsen, Moore & Torpy, P.A. 502 East Park Avenue Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Law Firm of Newell & Terry, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Greenberg Traurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's applications for certificates of need to institute cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery services be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 15th of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth F. Hoffman Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones and Gay Post Office Box 1872 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert M. Eisenberg District IV Legal Counsel Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Charles Collette Art Forehand, Administrator Assistant General Counsel Office of Community Medical Department of HRS Facilities 1317 Winewood Boulevard Department of HRS Tallahassee, Florida 32301 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioner, St. Mary's, and Intervenor, BRCH contend that Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons more specifically set forth in St. Mary's Amended Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of a Rule. Respondent, HRS, and Intervenors, JFK, PBGMC, and Florida Hospital, contend that Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner, St. Mary's, presented the oral testimony of Philip Rond, W. Eugene Nelson-Michael L. Schwartz, and James McElreath. Petitioner submitted 9 exhibits at formal hearing, 8 of which were admitted in evidence. Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, St. Mary's subsequently had admitted an after- filed deposition of Frank R. Sloan. Intervenor BRCH had admitted in evidence 1 exhibit but called no witnesses. Respondent HRS presented the oral testimony of Elfie Stamm and Reid Jaffe. Respondent HRS had 4 exhibits admitted in evidence. At formal hearing, Intervenors JFK and PBGMC presented the oral testimony of Mark Richardson which was also adopted by HRS as its own. Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, JFK and PBGMC subsequently had admitted an after- filed deposition of Harold B. Luft which was also adopted by HRS. Official recognition of JFK's Petition in DOAH Case No. 86-4368 was granted. PBGMC had 1 exhibit admitted in evidence at formal hearing. Intervenor Florida Hospital, submitted no exhibits and adopted the testimony of HRS' witnesses. The Hearing Officer received two documents into evidence as Hearing Officer Exhibits, the Prehearing Stipulation between the parties in this proceeding and a copy of Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Official recognition was taken of the Final Order dated July 27, 1987, in St. Francis Careunit v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al., DOAH Case No. 84-2918. Subsequent to the filing of the transcript herein, and pursuant to time waivers and stipulations among the parties, St. Mary's and BRCH filed their joint proposed final order; JFK and PBGMC filed their joint proposed final order; and HRS and Florida Hospital filed individual respective proposed final orders. The parties' respective proposed findings of fact are ruled upon in the Appendix to this Final Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Additionally HRS' Motion to Strike Portions of the Joint Proposed Findings of Fact of St. Mary's and Intervenor BRCH, and JFK's Motion to Strike are ruled upon within this Final Order and its Appendix.
Findings Of Fact St. Mary's is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, West Palm Beach, Florida. St. Mary's has pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings DOAH Case No. 86-4368 concerning its certificate of need (CON) application for an open heart surgery program at St. Mary's which was preliminarily denied by HRS (CON Action No. 4551). Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, was utilized by HRS in evaluating St. Mary's CON application and was relied upon by HRS in its decision to deny CON Action No. 4551. Pursuant to that HRS review, there is no numerical need for the St. Mary's proposed program, based upon HRS' application of the quantitative need methodology contained in the Rule. St. Mary's is substantially affected by Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, and consequently has standing to seek administrative determination of the validity of said rule through this present cause. BRCH is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, Boca Raton Florida. BRCH has pending before HRS a CON application for an open heart surgery program at BRCH (CON Application No. 5194) which is currently being reviewed by HRS in accordance with Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. BRCH is substantially affected by Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, and consequently has standing to seek administrative determination of the validity of said rule through this present cause. JFK is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, Lake Worth, Florida, which has in place its open heart surgery program. JFK's open heart surgery program opened and closed in 1986. On the date of formal hearing, JFK had scheduled to reopen its open heart surgery program in August, 1987. The program is subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes, (1985), and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. JFK is an Intervenor in opposition to St. Mary's application in DOAH Case No. 86-4368 alleging that due to the service area and medical staff overlaps between St. Mary's and JFK, there will be adverse staffing, economic, availability, and quality impacts upon JFK. PBGMC is an existing general acute care hospital in HRS Service District 9, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, which has in place an open heart surgery program. Its program is likewise subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes (1985), and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. PBGMC is an Intervenor in opposition to St. Mary's application in DOAH Case No. 86- 4368 alleging that due to the service area and medical staff overlaps between St. Mary's and PBGMC, there will be adverse staffing, economic, availability and quality impacts upon PBGMC. Florida Hospital is an existing general acute care hospital in Service District 7, Orlando Florida, which has in place an open heart surgery program. It is subject to regulation pursuant to Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes (1985), and regulations promulgated thereunder, including Section 10- 5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. It may be inferred that a determination of invalidity of the Rule wall impact upon Florida Hospital if, as a result thereof CONs are granted for other open heart surgery programs in that District, but there is no direct evidence to that effect. No direct threat of revocation of Florida Hospital's existing CON or of economic or other impact of this rule challenge upon Florida Hospital was demonstrated by Florida Hospital at formal hearing. Respondent, HRS, is responsible for the administration of Sections 381.493-499, Florida Statutes, (the CON statute) and Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Code, (the CON rules). The initial development of the Rule was undertaken in 1982 and 1983 in a manner consistent with HRS internal policy. HRS reviewed the relevant literature relating to open heart surgery programs and services. Included among the literature reviewed were the National Guidelines for Health Planning (National Guidelines or Guidelines) and the standards for review of applications for certificates of need (CON) for open heart surgery services proposed by several Health Systems Agencies. At the time those standards were developed, the Health Systems Agencies were responsible for the first level of review in the state certificate of need process. Originally, the companion to the open-heart surgery rule, was Rule 10- 5.011(15), now codified as Rule 10-5.011(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, which rule sets forth criteria for cardiac catheterization lab CON applications. Considerably more emphasis was accorded the development of the companion rule initially, but even expert witnesses for Petitioner's view acknowledge that the rule promulgation process relative to the adoption of the open heart surgery rule was thorough, rational, and essentially non-remarkable in the scope of promulgation of numerous CON rules drafted and implemented for the first time during a period in which HRS was also developing other rules dealing with a broad range of services and facilities to comply with new legislation eliminating Health Systems Agencies and requiring HRS to adopt uniform methodologies to be used in the CON program. Subsequent to its review of the literature, HRS formed a work group to assist in the development of the Rule. HRS prepared a draft of the proposed Ruled which was sent to over fifty experts in the field of cardiology. HRS received extensive comments on the draft rule. The final proposed Rule was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. A public hearing on the proposed Rule was held in December, 1982, during which extensive public comment was received. The public comments were reviewed by and discussed among the HRS' health planning staff and administration. Upon consideration of all the input received, the final draft of the initial rule abandoned a proposal to rely on 1979 utilization data and substituted 1981 data. Additionally, provision was made to allow for consideration within the Rule's need formula of approved, but not yet operational, open heart surgery programs. The Rule was then filed for adoption and went into effect February 14, 1983. Because it was deemed prudent, and because the National Guidelines provided for it, HRS intended, at the time the initial open heart surgery rule was promulgated, to revisit the components of the Rule every 2-3 years. The Rule was next amended in 1986. At that time, in response to public comment, "Uc" of Subparagraph 8 of the Rule, which prescribes the base period to be used in the calculation of a service area use rate, was substantially revised. In its initial form, element "Uc" was based on the 1981 service area actual use rate. As amended, "Uc" measures the actual use rate in the service area for a 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the batching cycle at issue, or the most recent use rate available to HRS. There have been no other substantial amendments which impinge upon the instant Rule challenge. Among other allegations, Petitioner asserts that because the Rule is silent as to which or however many exceptional circumstances would have to exist in order to justify approval of a CON application for an open heart surgery program in the absence of numerical needs the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. The evidence and applicable case law do not support such a premise. The Rule provides that HRS will consider applications in the context of applicable statutory and rule criteria. See 10-5.011(1)(f)2. The Rule further provides that HRS will "not normally" approve applications for new open heart surgery programs unless the conditions of subparagraphs 8 and 11 of the Rule are met. Also 10-5.011(1)(f)2. The very nature of "not normal" circumstances is that all possible "not normal" circumstances cannot be enumerated within a rule because in the attempt, some exceptionalities would inevitably be excluded. Of the four applications proposing new open heart surgery programs which have been approved in the recent past, three were approved under "not normal" circumstances, that is, where one or both provisions of Subparagraphs 8 and 11 were not met. The applicable state agency action reports (SAARS) which reflect HRS' preliminary position on CON applications, demonstrate that HRS routinely considers all relevant statutory and regulatory criteria in its review of open heart surgery program CON applications. There is no competent substantial evidence to show that HRS' evaluation of applications proposing new open heart surgery programs are prohibited by the Rule from entailing a balanced consideration of the statutory and regulatory criteria relevant to CON review. As a corollary of the foregoing allegation, it is alleged that because the Rule does not specifically address what has come to be known in CON practice as "the in-migration/out-migration" phenomenon, while at least one other CON rule does specifically address this phenomenon, a balanced consideration of all statutory criteria is frustrated, thereby resulting in understating the need for open heart surgery programs in one District/service area while enabling unnecessary, costly duplication of programs within other Districts/service areas. The use rate (discussed infra) purports to capture that in- and out- migration which can be standardized within the 12 month base period. At hearing, it was tenuously demonstrated that an unmeasured in-/out-migration phenomenon may exist within 2 out of 11 HRS Districts, but the degree to which it exists, if at all, is purely speculative. Even if these two Districts clearly possessed extraordinary timeframe, geographical, or transportation uniqueness, these access abnormalities would not justify declaring the Rule invalid. Rather, in the event the use rate for some reason does not measure them, these exceptionalities would be just the sort of "not normal" aberration for which it would be appropriate to resort to balancing of all statutory and rule criteria. Petitioner also contends that because this Rule does not define "service area" as the respective HRS Service District, it leaves each applicant free to designate, virtually at will, its own service area. Apparently, the initial Rule drafters intended that the service area be defined in the open heart surgery Rule as the HRS Service District. In finalizing Section (1)(e)(its companion cardiac catheterization lab rate rule), this definition was indeed included. However, in the open heart surgery rule, it was omitted. No witness recommended or even seriously considered that any service area less than the relevant HRS District should be designated, and the evidence is unrefuted and substantial that District lines have always been uniformly applied by HRS in interpreting the open heart surgery Rule. This interpretation is consistent with the agency's application of similarly silent rules. Petitioner alleges that because there is no Rule requirement or uniform manner for hospitals to report their open heart surgery utilization data to Local Health Councils or to HRS, the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. Authorized HRS representatives and others testified that data for the most current 12-month period, with a 2 month lag time are the most appropriate data to use. Testimony by St. Mary's experts that the data necessary to derive the rule methodology is not available, was directly refuted by evidence from authorized HRS representatives and others that HRS is able to collect all necessary data even though some councils report at different intervals from each other, and even though some hospitals report in "cases," others in "procedures" and one in "minutes." Because of these procedures of reporting, it may be necessary to make certain mathematical conversions or interpretations in preparing an agency SAAR or in presenting evidentiary proof in a Section 120.57 hearing, but even if one accepts that it is difficult to collect and interpret the necessary data, that concept does not support the conclusion that the Rule itself is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise fatally flawed. Subparagraph 8 of the Rule defines Year X as the year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service but no more than two years into the future. St. Mary's contentions with regard to this provision are that the triggerpoint cannot be determined and that by allowing applicants in the same batching cycle to elect varying dates of initiating service, similarly batched applicants may select different horizons within the two year outside limit and therefore those two applicants could not be comparatively reviewed. It was shown that in the last batching cycle all applications were reviewed from the same trigger date and that HRS' implementation of the CON rules is guided by legal precedent. HRS' shifting of trigger dates in past batches is accounted for by shifting legal precedents. Therefore, assuming applicants in the same batch may unilaterally select different planning horizons within the traditional two year range permissible under the Rule, that is not sufficient to invalidate the Rule as arbitrary and capricious. The Rule establishes a need formula. Entitlement of applicants to "comparative review" is set forth in other statutory, ruled and case law authority. Applicants in the same batching cycle who elect significantly different horizon dates under the Rule probably ought not to be comparatively reviewed, but that problem is to be addressed within the context of "all statutory and rule criteria" both at the agency level in the case of initial review, and, when necessary, in the case of litigation before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by appropriate motion. The remainder of Petitioner's challenge addresses, in one form or another, the Rule's numerical need formula. The Rule establishes three thresholds which apply to utilization of open heart surgery programs. Subsection 3.d. requires that each program shall be able to provide 500 open heart operations per year." Each program is required to provide a minimum of 200 adult open heart procedures annually within 3 years of the initiation of service, with no additional programs to be approved in a service area until each existing program is operating at a minimum of 350 adult open heart cases. Subparagraphs 8 and 11 are the cornerstones of the numerical need formula provided in the Rule. Specifically, Subparagraph 11 of the Rule provides: There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless; The service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year; and, The conditions specified in Sub- subparagraph 5.d., above, will be met by the proposed program. b. No additional open heart surgery programs shall be approved which would reduce the volume of existing open heart surgery facilities below 350 open heart procedures annually for adults and 130 pediatric heart procedures annually, 75 of which are open heart. The standard found at Subparagraph 11 of the Ruled which provides that there should be no additional open heart surgery units initiated in a service area unless each existing and approved unit is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric open heart cases per year, is based upon a substantially similar standard enunciated in the National Guidelines published in 1978 and in effect at the time the Rule was initially promulgated. The National Guidelines were developed by the Federal Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) pursuant to an extensive process of public consultation, including receipt of recommendations and comments for Health Systems Agencies (HSAs), State Health Planning and Development Agencies (SHPDAs) Statewide Health Coordinating Councils, associations representing various health care providers, and the National Council on Health Planning and Development. The federal process of promulgation encompassed over two years of consultation, public notices, public meetings, and related activities. There were strong incentives to SHPDAs to develop local standards consistent with the National Guidelines and the National Guidelines contain a provision which permitted HSAs and SHPDAs pursuant to detailed local analyses, to deviate from the standards contained in the National Guidelines. The Florida Rule deviates from the National Guidelines in that it does not require facilities which offer cardiac catheterization services to also offer open heart surgery service. Florida's rationale supporting the 350 standard in its Rule is that of the National Guidelines which assumes that each facility can provide an average of seven operations a weeks a schedule HEW judged to be feasible in most institutions which provide open heart surgery services. As a matter of health planning policy, HEW established the 350 standard in an effort to prevent duplication of costly services which are not fully utilized, both as to facility resources and manpower. This goal is reiterated in the 1985 Florida State Health Plan. Reasonableness of the 350 case requirement is supported by testimony regarding the purposes behind the hours of operation standards portion of the Rule. See 10-5.011(1)(f)4.b. That subparagraph mandates that open heart surgery programs be available for procedures 8 hours per days 5 days per weeks for a total of 40 available hours of surgery per week, and capable of rapid mobilization of the surgical and medical support team for emergencies 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Since it is estimated that each open heart procedure requires an average of 4 hours of operating room time, including cleanup, and operations go forward 50 weeks per year, then each program can, over time, attain the goal of 500 annual open heart operations which is set in Subsection 3.b. Considering both elective and unscheduled services, HRS arrived at a 75 percent of maximum as a reasonable utilization figure, and Petitioner has in no way refuted the reasonableness of these hours of operation requirements or of HRS' 75 percent figure for reasonable utilization. The 350 threshold figure is primarily intended to ensure an appropriate utilization level of every open heart surgery unit. In fact, the minimum quality standard is set forth in Subparagraph 5 of the Rule as "200" and is supported in reason and logic upon the facts set forth, infra. The 350 figure here is intended to result in greater efficiency which results in economic benefits to the hospital which may ultimately be passed on to patients. I accept Dr. Luft's expert opinion and analysis that the economic benefits of a 350 threshold are derived primarily from clinical economies of scale which result from improved proficiencies in the provision of service rather than solely in the classic economy of scale of a greater division of fixed costs. One clinical economy of scale demonstrated by Dr. Luft is that shorter average lengths of hospital stay result from high volume facilities. The shorter lengths of stay translate into patient or third party payor dollars saved. Admittedly, the 350 standard also secondarily encompasses consideration of the relationship of the volume of open heart surgery services and patient mortality, thus peripherally impinging on the volume of a 200 minimum threshold for quality of care purposes. Except for one study by Dr. Sloan, the evidence consistently supports existence of a negative relationship between volume and outcome, e.g., facilities performing higher volumes of open heart surgery have lower mortality rates. Obvious empirical problems inherent in Dr. Sloan's study impair its credibility. In light of his deposition testimony concerning how his several studies were conducted and how empirical data was converted by him for use in those studies, and due to his superior education, training, and experience, I find more credible Dr. Luft's determination that hospitals which perform low volumes of open heart surgery, particularly with respect to coronary artery bypass graft surgery, have substantially higher mortality rates than hospitals performing higher volumes of such surgery. Moreover, those areas of analysis in which the opinions of these two health care economic experts, Dr. Luft and Dr. Sloan, are consistent with one another and with the other literature and experts in the field whom they each cite as accepted and relied upon by them, strongly suggest that Dr. Sloan's unusual conclusion that low volume hospitals more often fit his unique categorization of "low mortality" should not be relied upon for purposes of formulating, drafting, and promulgating standard rules. The 350 standard does not appear to have impeded either competition or quality of care. There is also no competent substantial evidence to establish that there are too few open heart surgery programs in Florida at this time. At present, no District/Service Area has fewer than two open heart surgery programs, and 8 of the 11 Districts have 3 or more programs. Although many individual programs fall below the 350 thresholds on average, open heart surgery programs in operation in Florida perform close to 350 cases per year apiece. Between 1985 and 1986 the percentage of Florida programs performing 350 or more cases annually climbed from 24 percent to 35 percent. Petitioner never directly attacked the 200 procedure standard for quality, however, some evidence was presented to show that a lesser figure could still uphold quality considerations. This evidence was neither substantial nor credible. In lieu of the 350 utilization threshold, a variety of possible optimal threshold numbers were suggested by Petitioner's expert witnesses, among them 130 (the same utilization figure as for pediatric cases), 150, and 200 (the same figure as presently used to insure adult quality of care). Even if the highest of these suggested figures were selected as a utilization standard, that is, 200 cases per year substituted for the 350 utilization standards a minimum additional 31 open heart surgery programs would be "needed" on a statewide basis. This would nearly double the current number. Assuming there would emerge therefrom a normal distribution of programs around the substituted 200 standard, there could be the result that half the State's programs would then be operating below 200 and half above 200, so that half the programs would operate below the 200 quality of care standard now in effect. Even assuming arguendo that Petitioner's expert, Mr. Schwartz, is correct that 72 percent of current programs meet or exceed the 200 procedure levels and that that 72 percent would remain constant, more than one quarter of the state's programs would be below the 200 quality of care level. This is clearly not a desirable health planning goal. Such a proliferation of straight numbers of programs would doubtless impact adversely on all existing approved providers' utilization, concomitantly forcing up individual consumer costs. The testimony is more credible that the improvement curve "flattens out" anywhere from 333 to 350, but even if one were to accept St. Mary's witnesses position that the improvement curve "bottoms out" (that is, utilization and quality optimums meet) at 200 open heart surgeries, there is evidence that there is still some minimal improvement in outcome (quality) in operations performed in hospitals exceeding the 200 figure. The 350 standard reduces the number of institutions over which a given number of procedures is spread and in general will result in higher volume per hospital, reducing the likelihood that outcomes would be worse than they might be otherwise. To the extent that witnesses support the position that the 350 figure is not reasonably or rationally related to the CON statutes, is arbitrary, or is unduly restrictive of the initiation of new open heart surgery programs, their testimony is unpersuasive in light of the foregoing determinations with regard to the hours of operation standards, the National Guidelines, and the statutory goal to avoid proliferation of such programs at the expense of efficiency, economy, and quality. Subsection 8 of the Rule provides as follows: Need Determination. The need for open heart surgery programs in a service area shall be determined by computing the projected number of open heart surgical procedures in the service area. The following formula shall be used in this determination: Where: N = Number of open heart procedures projected for Year X; U = Actual use rate (number of procedures per hundred thousand population) in the service area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the Letter of Intent deadline for the batching cycle. P = Projected population in the service area in Year X; and, Year X = The year in which the proposed open heart surgery program would initiate service, but not more than two years into the future. Subparagraph 8 of the Rule provides a formula by which numerical need for open heart surgery programs within a service area may be calculated. The use rate therein is based upon the number of procedures per 100,000 population in the District/Service Area for the 12 month period beginning 14 months prior to the letter of intent deadline for the applicant. If a District does not have 12 months' experience, the statewide use rate is used. This use rate is based upon the most recent utilization data available to HRS. The data necessary to calculate the use rate is accessible and available to HRS as set out supra. The base period employed in the calculation of the use rate is appropriate for use in the numerical need methodology. It provides the most current picture of utilization of open heart surgery services within each District/Service Area which the agency has been able to devise. The Rule's base period essentially provides what health planners describe as a "realistic" or "rolling" use rate. Such a component permits consideration of facility number increases and volume fluctuations within facilities within the District/Service Area. Increased number of facilities and volume increases and decreases within specific facilities are quickly reflected by such a use rate and may be quickly considered in projecting need for the future. Such reality based use rates are customarily employed by health planners in projecting need for new open heart surgery services. The use rate minimally approaches the differences in population utilization of open heart surgery facilities occurring across age differential groupings. Although there is some evidence that the use rate formula contained in the Rule is not optimal in providing accessibility where there occasionally is clustering of "aged aged" population centers or clustering of heart surgery optimal age groups, the evidence in favor of such a rolling use rate establishes that as a statewide rule component, it is reasonable, not arbitrary, and not capricious. No witness offered a more reasonable substitute base period and the agency is not required to promulgate an optimal one, merely a reasonable one. St. Mary's and BRCH's witnesses suggestion that the Rule is ambiguous for a discernible number need methodology is not substantiated by credible competent evidence, and is generally rejected. Ms. Stamm, testifying for Respondent, had trouble with applying basic arithmetic under stress but not with the methodology. Mr. Schwartz, on behalf of the Rule's opponents, had some difficulty in determining whether the 200 or 350 standard was the appropriate figure for need determination. No other witness experienced Mr. Schwartz' confusion. When called to work Subparagraph 8 calculations, all witnesses were in agreement as to the mechanics of the Rule. No witness, including those who attacked the Rule as facially inconsistent due to the Rule's use of undefined terms of "programs," "procedures," and "cases" and/or those who complained about difficulty of obtaining raw data for the base time period had any difficulty in applying the Rule's numerical need formula, and indeed, Mr. Rond testified that HRS' interpretation of the numerical need formula was the most straightforward interpretation (TR-115) and the way he would logically do it. (TR-98-100) Each witness who was asked to use the Rule's formula in order to determine numerical need, consistently offered the following approach: First Derive Nx, as provided in Subparagraph 8. (Nx is the number of open heart procedures projected for year X). Second: Divide Nx by 350 (from Subparagraph 11) to obtain the gross projected need. Third, subtract from the gross projected needs the numbers of existing and approved programs within the applicable district so as to obtain the net need. The Rule's provision for subtraction of approved as well as for subtraction of operating programs from gross need so as to determine net need was investigated and adopted in the rational approach to rule promulgation. This is an accepted health planning component utilized in numerous CON rules. For these reasons and for all of the foregoing reasons related to the value of retaining 350 utilization and 200 quality thresholds, this provision for subtracting approved facilities from the gross need is found neither arbitrary nor capricious. The evidence presented by St. Mary's and BRCH is insufficient to demonstrate that HRS has not, subject to evolving legal precedent, consistently used the formula's interpretation set forth in Finding of Fact 33, at least as modulated by universally accepted common mathematical principles such as rounding results to the nearest whole number and considering "not normal" circumstances in light of all statutory and rule criteria on a case by case basis. In any case, if the agency misapplies its own Rule, applicants have recourse to a Section 120.57 proceeding and misapplication is not cause to invalidate the rule applied. I also reject as speculative and not credible St. Mary's allegation that a "sinister" conspiracy among existing and authorized providers within a given District may unnaturally reduce a single facility below the 350 threshold in order to thwart new program applications. Mr. Rond and Mr. Schwartz also promoted the premise that this result might occur unintentionally as well. HRS has not interpreted the Rule in such a peculiar manner and has approved new programs in districts where individual existing programs were not performing at the 350 level. I specifically reject as not credible the testimony of the St. Mary's and BRCH's witnesses professing concern that persons applying the Rule may be confused about how to work the formula and whether or not the pediatric population within a service area or the 130 pediatric procedures are to be subtracted at some point. Px is defined in the Rule to mean "the projected population in the service area in Year X." The Rule's language is plain and unambiguous. Nothing in the language of the Rule suggests the "projected population in the service area" is intended to exclude the pediatric population. Petitioner offered evidence that in certain instances HRS has applied Px to include the pediatric population. This, on its face, is an erroneous application of the Rule but without more, will not invalidate the Rule itself. Should HRS fail to implement the Rule according to the plain meaning of its languages an affected party may contest that agency action in a Section 120.57 hearing. In the case of former HRS employees concerned with drafting, promulgating amending and/or applying the Rule over a period of several years, their credibility is impaired by their never attempting to correct the alleged flaws and by their expressed perception of the necessity for a rule challenge as a strategic litigation move in anticipation of St. Mary's contested CON action.
The Issue Whether the proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), the "open heart rule", constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. On January 18, 1991, HRS published proposed rule changes (the "Proposed Amendments") to Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, No. 3 at page 163. These consolidated cases were brought pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, to challenge these Proposed Amendments to the administrative rules for the Certificate of Need program. As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand the background of the rule and the Proposed Amendments. Rule 10-5.011(1)(f), regulates the provision of open heart surgery throughout the eleven HRS service districts in Florida. HRS' stated purpose in promulgating the Proposed Amendments was to "clarify" certain provisions of the existing rule. The original version of the open heart surgery rule was drafted in 1982, and was modeled after the National Guidelines for Health Planning, (hereinafter the "National Guidelines"). At the time the existing rule was adopted, the Florida Certificate of Need Program closely tracked the National Guidelines. Prior to adopting the existing rule, HRS reviewed the relevant literature regarding open heart surgery programs. In addition, a task force was convened to review numerous issues, including certain criticisms received from the health care industry that the National Guidelines were too restrictive. In 1985, the open heart rule was amended in response to evidence demonstrating that the incidence rate of adult open heart surgery had increased. The rule was amended to project need based upon the actual use rate experienced. The amended rule provided that the use rate would be adjusted for every batch of applications based on the most recent twelve month data available. In 1987, the open heart surgery rule was challenged by St. Mary's pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The primary issue in that rule challenge was whether the 350 minimum volume operations standard in the rule was too high. Following a three day hearing which included the presentation of extensive expert testimony, the rule was declared to be a valid exercise of delegated authority. See, St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 87-2729R, 9 F.A.L.R. 6159. (This subject matter is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 91-92 below.) In 1989, HRS published what it considered to be proposed technical amendments to the open heart surgery rule to resolve certain issues regarding the publication of the fixed need pool and to clarify some other aspects of the rule. No work group was convened for these proposals because HRS did not consider the proposed changes to be substantive. However, a number of challenges were filed to the proposed rule amendments. In April of 1990, HRS decided to withdraw the amendments and seek further input from the health care industry and other affected persons regarding possible changes to the rule. A work group (the "Work Group") was convened on June 18, 1990 to discuss the issues raised in the various challenges to the 1989 proposed rule amendments and to consider other matters raised by the various industry representatives and other concerned parties. Representatives from numerous Florida hospitals, as well as representatives from the Association of Voluntary Hospitals, the Florida League of Hospitals and the Florida Hospital Association participated in the Work Group. The participants included hospitals that have open heart surgery programs and those that do not, including several who had applied or who have an interest in offering those services. The minutes of the Work Group Meeting were transcribed and are contained in the rule promulgation file which was accepted into evidence as HRS Exhibit 5. Elfie Stamm, the HRS planner primarily responsible for the original development and subsequent amendments of the open heart surgery rule was an active participant in the Work Group. She also oversaw the development of Volume 3 of the State Health Plan in 1988 and 1989. This volume deals with certificate of need matters and contains detailed research and analysis of open heart surgery trends and developments. Thus, Ms. Stamm was very familiar with the issues and current research in the area. Based upon the evidence deduced during the Work Group Meeting and a review of the research in the area, HRS decided to promulgate the Proposed Amendments which it considered to be "technical" changes to the rule that were intended to not change the impact on current and prospective providers. HRS specifically decided not to make any changes that would modify the current overall need projections. Prior to publication, the Proposed Amendments were circulated for internal review, approval and signoff, and were sent to the House Health Care Committee and the Senate HRS Committee. The Proposed Amendments were also sent to all the members of the Work Group, who were advised that it would be published on January 18, 1991. As noted above, the Proposed Amendments were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 18, 1991. Only one public comment (dated January 24, 1991, and received by HRS on January 28, 1991,) was submitted in response to the January 18, 1991 publication of the Proposed Amendments. That comment suggested clarifying language to Subparagraph 7(a) II of the Proposed Amendments. In response to this letter, HRS caused to be published a Notice of Change in the February 1, 1991 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The January 18, 1991 Notice provided that a public hearing on the Proposed Amendments would be conducted on February 11, 1991 at 10:00 a.m. if requested. No public hearing was requested and, therefore, none was held. St. Mary's has insinuated that the Notice was somehow deficient because the public hearing was scheduled more than 21 days after the notice of rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The evidence indicates that such scheduling is customary in order to assure that a request can be made right up until the last possible moment without the necessity of holding two public hearings. Overview of the Proposed Amendments Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f) is a new section entitled "Departmental Intent." This section states that certificates of need for open heart surgery programs will not normally be approved unless the applicant meets the relevant statutory criteria, including the need determination criteria in the rule. This Section also provides that separate certificates of need will be required in order to establish either an adult or pediatric open heart surgery program. As discussed in more detail below, the existing rule does not expressly state that separate CONs must be obtained to implement adult and pediatric programs. The proposed rule amendments do not specifically address the provision of adult and pediatric open heart surgery within the same program. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)2 sets forth several new definitions. Subparagraph 2j establishes for the first time pediatric open heart service areas which are made up of combined HRS districts and are thus much larger than adult open heart service areas. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)3 mandates that pediatric open heart surgery programs must have the same services and procedures as adult programs, including intraaortic balloon assists. Subparagraph 3c requires that pediatric open heart surgery programs shall only be located in hospitals with inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)4 contains the travel time standard which applies to adult open heart surgery service accessibility, and the maximum waiting period for open heart surgery team mobilization for adult and pediatric programs. There is no travel time standard for pediatric services in the Proposed Amendments. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)4d requires applicants for adult or pediatric open heart surgery programs to document the manner in which they will provide open heart surgery to all persons in need. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)7 is entitled "Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination". Subparagraph (a) essentially recodifies and restates existing Rule 10-5.011(f)11 and provides that each and every adult open heart surgery program within a district should be performing 350 adult open heart surgery operations per year prior to there being a calculated net need for a new program in that district. The section does not contain an explanation or delineation of "not normal" circumstances that HRS will consider in the absence of a net numeric need. Currently, Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)11., provides: There shall be no additional open heart surgery programs established unless: The service volume of each existing and approved open heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year. As discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 89-97 below, from approximately early 1985 through January 22, 1990, HRS interpreted this section to require that the volume of procedures provided by all existing programs in each service district be averaged to determine whether need existed for a new open heart surgery program (the "averaging method"). This averaging method allowed HRS to find numeric need when the average total of procedures per program in the district equaled 350 or more. After this interpretation was rejected in several cases, HRS abandoned the "averaging" approach and has been requiring "each and every" existing program in a district to meet the 350 minimum standard before a new adult program will normally be approved. Subparagraph (b) of Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)7 mandates that only one program shall be approved at a time, and contains the numeric need calculation formula for adult open heart surgery programs. Subparagraph (c) states that, regardless of whether need is shown according to the formula, if an incoming provider will reduce an existing provider's volume below 350, the applicant will not normally be approved. Proposed Section 10-5.011(1)(f)8 contains a new method for calculating need for pediatric open heart surgery programs. Pursuant to this proposal, need would be calculated based on the number of resident live births in a pediatric open heart surgery program service area. The proposal would require at least 30,000 resident live births per pediatric program. The economic impact statement (EIS) which accompanied the Proposed Amendments states that, other than administrative and word processing costs, there will be no additional annual or operating costs associated with the implementation of the Proposed Amendments. The EIS contains no statement of the impact upon potential applicants or existing providers due to the changes in either the adult or pediatric portions of the rule. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 1 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A SEPARATE CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR AN ADULT OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAM AND PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAM. The existing rule does not expressly require separate certificate of need applications for pediatric and adult open heart surgery programs. However, HRS' policy for at least the last year has been to require hospitals to obtain separate certificates of need for adult open heart surgery programs and pediatric open heart surgery programs. See Findings of Fact 135 below. In other words, the proposed amendment codifies HRS' current interpretation of the existing rule. The Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Amendments examined the issue of whether HRS should require hospitals to obtain separate CONs for adult open heart surgery programs and pediatric open heart surgery programs. In addition, HRS reviewed the available literature, including the National Guidelines and the Guidelines for Pediatric Cardiology Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (hereinafter the "Pediatric Guidelines"). Comments were also solicited from the Children's Medical Services Program Office which regulates certain aspects of pediatric cardiac surgery. Based upon a review of this information, HRS concluded that (1) pediatric and adult open heart surgery programs are generally and properly operated as separately organized programs and (2) pediatric programs are and should be staffed by personnel specially trained to provide pediatric care. There are significant differences between providing open heart surgery to adults and providing open heart surgery to children. Adults generally have acquired heart disease, while children generally have congenital heart problems. The transfer process and approach to open heart surgery differs between adults and children. Pediatric open heart patients are more labile in certain situations than adult open heart surgery patients. People who work with adult open heart surgery patients often lack the ability to work with pediatric open heart surgery patients. In sum, the evidence established that pediatric open heart surgery is a complex service which requires a team dedicated to that service. With the possible exception of one program, all the pediatric open heart surgery programs in Florida are offered in separately organized programs. The incidence rate of pediatric open heart surgery is significantly lower than that for adult open heart surgery. The latest data reflects that from October 1989 to September 1990 there were only 545 pediatric heart surgeries performed in the state of Florida as compared to nearly 21,000 adult open heart surgeries during the same period. Nothing in the Proposed Amendments prohibits an applicant from applying for both adult and pediatric open heart surgery. The rule does have separate requirements, including separate need methodologies, which would normally have to be satisfied as a predicate to the award of either program. St. Mary's voiced a concern that the Economic Impact Statement did not address the additional costs to applicants, (i.e. duplicate application fees) that will result from this provision of the Proposed Amendments which requires separate certificates of need for adult and pediatric programs. As noted above, such costs are already necessary under HRS' interpretation of the existing rules. In any event, St. Mary's has not demonstrated that such additional costs would be other than minimal. WHETHER THE CLASSIFICATION OF OPEN-HEART SURGERY BY THE DIAGNOSTIC RELATED GROUPS LISTED IN SUB-PARAGRAPH 2.g. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS VAGUE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. Subparagraph 2.g. of the proposed amendments reads as follows: "Open Heart Surgery Operation". Surgery assisted with a heart-lung by-pass machine that is used to treat conditions such as congenital heart defects, heart and coronary artery diseases, including replacement of heart valves, cardiac vascularization, and cardiac trauma. One open heart surgery operation equals one patient admission to the operating room. Open heart surgery operations are classified under the following diagnostic related groups: DRGs 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 110. Diagnostic related groups or "DRGs", are a health service classification system used by the Medicare System. The existing rule does not include the reference to DRG classifications. Some confusion had been expressed by applicants as to whether certain organ transplant operations which utilized a bypass machine during the operation should be reported as open heart operations or as organ transplantation operations. The amendment was intended to clarify that only when the operation utilizes the bypass machine and falls within one of the enumerated categories should it be considered an open heart surgery operation. The inclusion of the listed DRGs was meant to clarify the existing definition by limiting the DRG categories within which open heart surgery services may be classified. There is no dispute that the primary factor in defining an open heart surgery procedure is the use of a heart-lung machine. Florida Hospital argued that the proposed definition is ambiguous and vague because not all procedures which fit into the listed DRG categories necessarily involve open heart surgery. Florida Hospital's fear that the new language would seem to indicate that each procedure falling into the listed DRGs qualifies as an open heart surgery operation is unfounded. While the provision could have been written in a simpler and clearer manner, the definition adequately conveys the intent that the use of a heart-lung by-pass machine is an essential element to classifying an operation as open-heart surgery. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 2.j. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT ESTABLISHES PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SERVICE AREAS WHICH ARE LARGER THAN ADULT OPEN HEART SERVICE AREAS WHICH MAY RESULT IN DEPRIVATION OF NEEDED OPEN HEART SURGERY PROGRAMS IN SOME SERVICE AREAS. The Proposed Amendments will regulate pediatric open heart surgery on a regional basis. Five "Services Areas" are created by combining HRS service districts. In establishing these Service Areas, HRS considered the extent to which patients would have geographic access to pediatric open heart surgery services. The Service Areas were organized geographically in a manner intended to result in one pediatric open heart surgery program in each Service Area. Section 20.19(7), Florida Statutes, provides that "[t]he Department shall plan and administer its programs of health, social, and rehabilitative services through service districts and subdistricts ... ." This statute sets forth the geographic composition of each district and subdistrict through which HRS is to administer its programs. Section 20.19(7)(a), Florida Statutes. St. Mary's contends that no statutory authority exists for combining "service districts" to create "service areas." However, no prohibition against combining districts for tertiary services exists in the statute and, indeed, the nature of tertiary services mandates such an approach in some instances. As indicated below, HRS has combined districts for other programs. Section 381.702(20) defines "tertiary health services" and authorizes HRS to establish by rule a list of tertiary health services. Tertiary health care services are complex services which involve high consumption of hospital resources. Due to the low incidence of those medical conditions which require tertiary services, there is a benefit in limiting those services to select facilities in order to maximize volume at those facilities. This approach is known as the regionalization of health care services. HRS has promulgated a list of tertiary health services in Rule 10- 5.002(66) (previously 10-5.002(40), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection 9 of this Rule includes "neonatal and pediatric cardiac and vascular surgery." Thus, pediatric open heart surgery is a tertiary health care service. HRS regulates other tertiary services, including burn units, organ transplants programs, and pediatric cardiac catheterization services, on a regional basis. See e.g., Rules 10-5.043, and 5.044 Florida Administrative Code. Regionalization of tertiary services at a central point has been used by HRS to encourage an appropriate volume level at each center. The evidence established that there is a correlation between volume and outcome in pediatric open heart programs. HRS has concluded that pediatric open heart surgery should be limited to and concentrated in a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of the service. No persuasive evidence was presented to rebut this conclusion. The evidence indicates that pediatric open heart surgery services are currently delivered in Florida on a regional basis. A limited number of hospitals scattered throughout the state are serving the state's population. Of the eight hospitals which are included among the HRS inventory of hospitals providing pediatric open heart surgery services, only 5 perform a significant volume of cases. Each of those five hospitals is either a teaching hospital or a specialty pediatric hospital. The other three hospitals listed on the inventory have large adult open heart surgery programs, but perform a very low volume of pediatric cases. The evidence did not establish that the existing providers are currently unable to meet the need for services in the state. Based upon a review of the existing research and literature, HRS has concluded that a facility should perform approximately 100 pediatric heart surgeries annually in order to retain proficiency. As discussed in Findings of Fact 132 below, the 30,000 annual live births standard will, over time, result in approximately 100-130 pediatric open heart surgery cases per year among the population base from birth to age 21. In Service Area 1, the resident live births in 1988 were 16,142. (Service Area 1 combines HRS Districts 1 and 2.) Thus, the number of live births in this Service Area would have to almost double before a new program could meet this standard. While Petitioners object to this result, no persuasive evidence was presented to establish that HRS has acted arbitrarily in establishing the Service Area. The rule requires a pediatric program in each Service Area. However, only one of the Service Areas established by this Proposed Amendment meets the 30,000 live birth standard. St. Mary's contends that this discrepancy renders the proposed amendment internally inconsistent. However, there are significant countervailing considerations which militate against closing an existing program and justify the continuation of established programs in these areas. These considerations include the need to insure geographic access, the reluctance to disturb existing referral patterns and a reluctance to disturb programs with demonstrated proficiency. The HRS Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Amendments addressed the issue of regulating pediatric open heart surgery services on a regional basis. No persuasive evidence was presented in opposition to this approach. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT REQUIRES SERVICES AND PROCEDURES WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARY TO THE SAFE EFFECTIVE PROVISION OF PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. The Proposed Amendments will require hospitals seeking to provide pediatric open heart surgery to have the ability to provide certain specified services. The requirements contained in paragraph 3 of the Proposed Amendments are the same as those contained in the existing rule. They are considered by HRS to be minimum standards for the provision of both adult and pediatric open heart surgery. The evidence established that it is desirable to have those services available, even if they are infrequently used. Dr. Byron testified that some of the procedures such as intra-aortic balloon assists, prolonged myocardial bypass and the repair and replacement of heart valves are performed less commonly in children. However, he did agree that these procedures are occasionally necessary and a pediatric program should have the ability to provide those services. Requiring a pediatric open heart program to have the capability to provide those services if necessary is consistent with the goal of regionalization of pediatric open heart surgery. There was no adverse public comment received during development of the Proposed Amendments regarding these requirements and no persuasive testimony or other evidence was offered during the Work Group or the hearing in this cause to establish that these minimum requirements are not appropriate and/or should be deleted. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 3c VI OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH REQUIRES THAT IN ORDER TO BE AWARDED A PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART PROGRAM THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO HAVE PEDIATRIC CARDIAC CATH, CREATES A "CATCH 22" WHEN READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CARDIAC CATH RULE WHICH REQUIRES AN APPLICANT FOR PEDIATRIC CARDIAC CATH TO OFFER PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART, AND IS THEREFORE INVALID. The Proposed Amendments require that in order to be awarded a certificate of need for a pediatric open heart surgery program, an applicant must have a pediatric cardiac catheterization ("cardiac cath") program. A similar requirement can be implied from the current open heart surgery rule and, indeed, HRS has interpreted the current rule is this manner. The cardiac cath rule requires that an applicant for a pediatric cardiac cath program must have a pediatric open heart surgery program. The Services Areas and the need methodologies in the proposed pediatric portion of the open heart surgery rule and the amended pediatric portion of the cardiac catheterization rule are the same. St. Mary's contention that applicants are placed in a "Catch 22" is rejected. If a facility wants to offer pediatric open heart, it is going to have to simultaneously apply for cardiac cath. There is nothing in this section, or anywhere else in the rule, which prohibits an applicant from applying for pediatric cardiac cath and pediatric open heart contemporaneously. In fact, such a simultaneous application is exactly what HRS is trying to encourage. The two services, pediatric open heart and pediatric cardiac cath, should only be offered in combination with each other. St. Mary's own witness, Dr. Harry Byron, a pediatric cardiologist, agreed that a facility that offers an open heart surgery program in pediatrics should also have pediatric cardiac cath capabilities. Every facility in the state of Florida which provides pediatric cardiac cath also provides pediatric open heart surgery. During the hearing, it was suggested that Hollywood Memorial Hospital is performing pediatric open heart without offering pediatric cardiac cath. However, an examination of the CON issued to Hollywood Memorial reveals that it was awarded both services simultaneously. St. Mary's contends that the Proposed Amendments to the open heart rule are deficient because they cross-reference the cardiac cath rules and there is some question as to the status of the cardiac cath rules. St. Mary's argues that HRS' predecessor cardiac catheterization rule is the current cardiac catheterization rule because proposed amendments to the cardiac cath rule were prevented from becoming final as the result of timely challenges. As best can be determined from the evidence in this case, there is no inconsistency between the Proposed Amendments and the cardiac cath rules. The evidence regarding the status of the cardiac cath rules was inconclusive. Amendments to the cardiac cath rule were published on April 22, 1988, but never became effective because of rule challenges which were eventually settled. When the rule amendments were republished on July 29, 1988 with certain agreed upon changes, timely challenges brought pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, prevented those changes from becoming effective. However, the Final Order in the case challenging the procedural adequacy of the July 29, 1988 amendments upheld a large portion of that proposed rule, including the sections pertinent to this case. See, Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Case No. 88-3970R (DOAH Final Order entered June 30, 1989). Thus, it appears that St. Mary's contention is without merit. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.a. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN A TRAVEL TIME STANDARD FOR PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART SURGERY. The Proposed Amendments do not contain a travel time standard for pediatric open heart surgery services. St. Mary's contends that the proposed rule should include a travel time standard for pediatric patients who need emergency procedures. There is no dispute that the longer a pediatric patient has to wait to have open heart surgery, the greater the chance of a negative outcome. Moreover, transporting pediatric patients is often more complicated and dangerous than transporting an adult patient because infants are more labile and closer attention must be paid to their glucose levels, to the environmental temperature and similar matters. In the course of its deliberations concerning the Proposed Amendments, HRS considered whether it should include a travel time standard relating to pediatric open heart surgery. No persuasive evidence was presented to HRS during the rule development process that an appropriate travel time standard could or should be adopted. HRS elected not to provide for a travel time standard out of concern that such standard would have suggested a "need" for programs in geographic areas which would not generate a sufficient case load to allow the program to maintain proficiency. A travel time standard such as that contained in the rule for the provision of adult open heart surgery programs would not be appropriate for the provision of pediatric open heart surgery programs because of the highly tertiary nature of the service. Had HRS used a two-hour travel time standard for pediatrics as it did for adult open heart, a need may have been shown for more programs than the volume of operations could support, resulting in programs with lower volumes than desired from a quality of care standpoint. Some pediatric patients in need of open heart surgery may have to travel as much as six hours by car if the need methodologies and Service Areas in the Proposed Amendments are adopted. In most instances, however, the travel time would be substantially less and most areas of the state will be within two to three hours by car to a pediatric open heart surgery center. Geographical location was one of the factors considered in the establishment of the Service Areas. However, the need to insure an adequate volume of cases for each program was an overriding concern. While it is certainly desirable to minimize travel and distance for pediatric patients as much as possible, these concerns must be counterbalanced against the need to insure that each center performs enough procedures to maintain proficiency. The evidence was insufficient to establish that HRS was arbitrary and/or capricious in dealing with these sometimes conflicting goals. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.c. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT REQUIRING TEAM MOBILI- ZATION FOR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS WITHIN A MAXIMUM WAITING PERIOD OF TWO HOURS IS CONTRARY TO THE EXCLUSION OF A TRAVEL TIME STANDARD FOR PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. As indicated above, there is no travel time standard for pediatric open heart surgery in the Proposed Amendments. There is, however, a requirement that a hospital be able to mobilize an open heart surgery team within a maximum time limit of two hours. Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)4. The purpose of the team mobilization standard is to assure rapid mobilization within the hospital once the baby has arrived at the hospital. This requirement is contained in the existing open heart rule and no adverse public comment was received regarding it. St. Mary's contends that having a two hour team mobilization standard for pediatric open heart surgery but no travel time standard for pediatric patients is inconsistent and reflects a disregard for pediatric accessibility or geographic accessibility. This criticism is rejected. The emergency mobilization standard addresses the applicant facility's ability to render emergency open heart surgery services subsequent to a patient's arrival at the facility. It is an internal requirement. A travel time standard addresses the extent to which the Service Area population has access to services. It is a requirement external to any specific hospital. For the reasons set forth in Findings of Fact 57-60 above, a travel time standard is not appropriate for pediatric open heart programs. However, these reasons do not negate the benefits of an emergency mobilization standard. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 4.d. OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE HRS IS WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE APPLICANTS TO DOCUMENT HOW OPEN HEART WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL PERSONS IN NEED. The existing rule mandates that open heart surgery be available to all persons in need regardless of the ability to pay. This provision remains intact in subparagraph 4.d. of the amended rule, but is clarified in part as follows: Applicants for adult or pediatric open heart surgery programs shall document the manner in which they will meet this requirement. HRS currently requires evidence of an applicant's past record with regard to Medicaid and indigent care, as well as statistical projections for the provision of such care upon implementation of its program. In fact, the language added to paragraph 4.d. simply reflects the Department's existing method of reviewing CON applications pursuant to the guidelines of Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, which requires consideration of an applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. Section 381.704(4), Florida Statutes (1989) gives HRS the authority to adopt rules necessary to implement Sections 381.701-381.715. Section 381.705, Florida Statutes (1989) requires HRS to review certificate of need applications in context with "(n) The applicant's past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent," "(h)... the extent to which the proposed services will be accessible to all residents of the service district", and "(b) the ... accessibility of like and existing health care services and hospices in the service district of the applicant." The Petitioners have not established any inconsistencies between the Proposed Amendments and the statutory standards of review. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, SERVICE QUALITY STANDARDS, IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE THE STANDARDS ARE UNRELATED TO PEDIATRIC OPEN HEART. The standards contained in Subsection 5 are minimum quality of care standards which apply to programs providing pediatric as well as adult open heart surgery. These requirements do not significantly change the existing rule. St. Mary's suggested that the standards were only applicable to an open heart program servicing adults and that pediatric programs should have different standards. No persuasive evidence was provided to establish that any of the requirements are unrelated or unnecessary to pediatric open heart programs. In fact, St. Mary's own witness, Dr. Bryon, testified that he had no objection to the provisions of paragraph 5. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE "NOT NORMAL" CIRCUMSTANCES. Subparagraph 7b of the proposed rule amendments establishes a need determination formula. Application of this formula is governed by minimum volume and utilization standards established under subparts a and c of paragraph 7. Subparagraph 7e of the proposed amendments provides as follows: a. A new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the HRS District if any of the following conditions exist: There is an approved adult open heart surgery program in the HRS District; One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the HRS District that were operational for at least twelve months as of six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the twelve months ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; or, One or more of the adult open heart surgery programs in the HRS District that were operational for less than twelve months during the twelve months ending six months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than an average of 29 adult open heart surgery operations per month. * * * (c) Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in subparagraph b. above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for an HRS district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the HRS district below 350 open heart surgery operations. (emphasis added) The need determination formula includes a presumption against approval of a new provider if there is already an approved program within a district, or any existing program within a district is operating at less than 350 procedures annually. HRS has recognized that the need determination formula cannot take into account all factors within a district which may affect actual need. Accordingly, the rule implicitly allows consideration of "not normal" circumstances in determining need. If circumstances are "normal", then a failure to satisfy the conditions in paragraph 7 will mean that the application is denied. However, by proving that circumstances are "not normal", a new adult open heart surgery program can be approved despite the failure to satisfy the conditions in paragraph 7. The "not normal" provision is also found in the statement of Departmental Intent, subparagraph 1 of the Proposed Amendments. That provision proclaims that an application will "not normally" be approved unless the applicant meets relevant statutory criteria, including the standards and need determination criteria. HRS perceived its current rule and the Proposed Amendments as providing applicants with the opportunity to demonstrate need for a new adult open heart surgery program by demonstrating numeric need under paragraph 7 or by demonstrating "not normal" circumstances. HRS can and will approve an application in the absence of quantified need where the other statutory review criteria are met and the applicant demonstrates that a need for a new program exists. The current rule provides a similar presumption against approval if there is already an approved program in the district, or if any existing program in the district is operating at less than 350 procedures annually. This rule has been interpreted to allow applicants to demonstrate actual need by demonstrating circumstances that transcend the numeric calculation. For example, an open heart program was recently approved by HRS for Marion County even in the absence of numeric need as determined by the rule. It is impossible to list all of the circumstances where a new program could be approved even in the absence of "numeric need." Examples of not normal circumstances include a showing of inaccessibility, excessive utilization of a particular facility, or an intentional action by an existing provider to keep its utilization below 350 annual procedures. Other factors may include exceptional circumstances as they relate to the review criteria listed in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes, evidence of an unusual payor mix, established referral patterns among existing providers, or evidence to suggest that an existing program could not reach the 350 minimum procedure volume because of poor quality of care. In sum, Paragraph 7 of the Proposed Amendments does not preclude an applicant from attempting to demonstrate that its application should be approved in the absence of quantified need. The "not normally" language will enable HRS to consider all the statutory review criteria in its review of applications even in the absence of numeric need under paragraph 7. The Petitioners challenging the "not normal" language in paragraph 7 of the Rule have failed to provide any credible evidence to demonstrate that the "not normal" provisions are arbitrary or capricious or unduly vague. Similar provisions have been upheld in prior cases. See, Humana, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889, 891, (Fla. 1st DCA, 1985); North Broward Hospital District v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 86-1186R (Final Order issued July 18, 1988.) WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 7.a. IS INVALID FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: Existing programs could block a proposed program by keeping the number of open heart operations performed in a given year below 350. As indicated above, the Proposed Amendments provide that a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved in a service district if any of the existing programs in the district performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 6 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool. The challengers claim that the Proposed Amendments to paragraph 7a are invalid because they allow existing programs to bar approval of new programs by keeping their volume below 350. This issue was considered by HRS in its rule amendment promulgation deliberations. No evidence was presented during those deliberations or at the hearing in this cause that there has been a deliberate attempt by any existing provider to keep the number of operations performed below 350 per year. Indeed, such an attempt is unlikely because it would require physicians to intentionally turn away patients requiring open heart surgery when a facility's numbers reach close to 350 operations on an annual basis. The existing rule has a similar provision. As discussed in more detail below, a Section 120.56 rule challenge was filed in 1987 against this provision in the existing rule alleging the possibility that an existing provider could block a proposed adult open heart surgery program by deliberately keeping its annual adult open heart surgery volume below 350 cases. These charges were rejected as speculative and unsubstantiated. St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative, 9 F.A.L.R. 6159, DOAH Case No. 87- 2729R. The Proposed Amendments would not prohibit the award of a CON if a deliberate pattern or scheme to keep volume low to lockout new providers was demonstrated. Because it protects market share which is anticompetitive and contrary to statute; is unconstitutional in that it denies equal protection and due process, and because it is contrary to agency policy through 1989. Paragraph 7.a. of the Proposed Amendments is based upon a substantially similar provision found in the National Guidelines. The National Guidelines were adopted by the Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare following an extensive consultation and review process in 1978. The National Guidelines are one of the key resource materials used by local and state health planning agencies in developing certificate of need regulations. The state of Florida conforms to the National Guidelines in most areas. According to the National Guidelines, a new open heart program should not ordinarily be approved if an existing program is operating at less than 350 operations annually. Specifically, Section 121.107(3) of the "Rules and Regulations" of the National Guidelines, entitled "Open Heart Surgery" published at Vol. 43, No. 60 of the Federal Register, provides at page 262: There should be no additional open heart units initiated unless each existing unit in the health service area(s) is operating and is expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 open heart surgery cases per year in adult services or 130 pediatric open heart cases in pediatric services. According to the "Discussion" at Section (b) of the Rules and Regulations for open heart surgery in the National Guidelines: In order to prevent duplication of costly resources which are not fully utilized, the opening of new units should be contingent upon existing units operating, and continuing to operate, at a level of at least 350 procedures per year. (emphasis added) The 350 service volume requirement has been a part of HRS' open heart surgery certificate of need rule since its adoption in 1982. As discussed in more detail below, there is a substantial body of literature which concludes that there is a relationship between volume and outcome in the provision of adult open heart surgery services. The literature contains data which demonstrates that, as a general rule, hospitals which provide higher volumes of adult open heart surgery cases achieve better patient outcomes. Based upon this research, the optimum efficiency standard, both from quality of care and economy of scale perspective, is believed to be approximately 500 procedures per year. The 350 minimum volume standard reflects HRS' desire that each existing and approved facility be operating at 75% of this optimum standard before any additional programs are approved within an HRS District. The 350 standard assumes that each facility can provide an average of seven operations per week, a schedule judged to be feasible in most institutions which provide open heart surgery services. As a matter of health planning policy, HRS adopted the 350-standard in an effort to prevent duplication of costly services which are not fully utilized, both as to facility resources and manpower. This standard is intended to assure both quality of care and efficiency in the operations of adult open heart surgery programs. For several years after the rule was originally adopted in 1982, the rule was interpreted by HRS to require a showing that each existing program was at or above 350 procedures annually before a new program could normally be approved. However, as discussed below, sometime around 1984 or 1985, HRS began "interpreting" the 350 standard to be an average, i.e., the average utilization of all existing programs in a district had to be at or above 350 before a new program would normally be approved. From approximately early 1985 through January 22, 1990, HRS interpreted the existing rule in accordance with the "averaging method". This averaging method allowed HRS to find numeric need when the average total of procedures per program in the district equaled 350 or more. In 1987, a Section 120.56 rule challenge was brought against the then existing open heart rule. In that case, the 350 standard was directly attacked as being too high as a minimum procedure threshold. In the 1987 challenge to the open heart rule, HRS explained the rule utilizing the averaging approach. St. Mary's Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, supra, 9 FALR at 6174. HRS witness Elfie Stamm testified during that hearing in support of the rule as it was being interpreted at that time. Extensive testimony was presented regarding the 350 standard. It is not clear whether any of the parties challenged the averaging approach as part of that case. Ultimately the rule, including the 350 standard was, upheld. The Final Order presumes that the averaging approach would be used and does not specifically address the validity of that approach. None of the Petitioners in this case have provided persuasive evidence that the 350 standard has become obsolete or inappropriate. Indeed, as discussed in more detail below, the evidence indicates that the 350 standard is still the most widely accepted standard. During 1989, several Orders were entered by the Division of Administrative Hearings rejecting HRS' interpretation that the existing rule permitted the averaging method. In Lakeland Regional Medical Center v. HRS, 11 FALR 6463 (DOAH Final Order November 15, 1989), a hearing officer declared the HRS "averaging policy" to be inconsistent with the language of the existing rule and an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it had not been adopted in accordance with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. In a subsequent 120.57 proceeding involving the proposed issuance of a CON for a new open heart surgery program, the Recommended Order rejected HRS' averaging policy and concluded that it could not be applied because it was inconsistent with the existing rule. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. HRS, 12 FALR 785 (Final Order, January 23, 1990). In the Recommended Order in the Hillsborough County case, the hearing officer did not address the relative merits of the averaging policy versus the each and every method. He found that "the incipient policy constitutes an impermissible deviation from the terms of an existing rule and cannot be used in this proceeding. In view of this conclusion, it is unnecessary to determine whether an adequate record foundation exists to support that [averaging approach]." Although HRS had argued in favor of the averaging policy at the hearing in the Hillsborough County case, the Secretary of HRS in his Final Order in that case accepted the "each and every" interpretation declaring that "it is good health planning to allow newly approved providers to become operational and reach the 350 procedure level as soon as possible and before new programs are authorized." Id. at 787. In subsequent final orders on other open heart surgery CON applications, HRS has followed this original interpretation of its existing open heart surgery rule and agreed that, as written, the rule requires that the 350 standard be met by each existing and approved facility before a new program can normally be approved. See, Mease Health Care v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 853 (Final Order dated January 23, 1990); Humana of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Humana Hospital Lucerne v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Central Florida Regional Hospital Inc. d/b/a Central Florida Regional Hospital. 12 FALR 823 (Final Order dated January 23, 1990), reversed on other grounds 16 F.L.W. 1515 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Hospital Development and Services Corporation d/b/a Plantation General Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 12 FALR 3462 (Final Order dated July 27, 1990.) In sum, since January, 1990, the Department has abandoned its former policy of averaging utilization on a district-wide basis and applied the Rule literally to require that "each and every" facility perform the required threshold number of procedures before a new program will normally be approved. HRS uses the averaging method to determine need for other programs such as cardiac catheterization, nursing homes, rehabilitation services, psychiatric and substance abuse services, and neonatal intensive care. The challengers contend that it is arbitrary for HRS to use an averaging approach to determine numeric need for some services and not use it for open heart programs. The mere fact that an averaging approach is used for other services does not in and of itself establish that HRS is acting arbitrarily in refusing to follow that approach with open heart surgery programs. The evidence established that HRS treats open heart surgery services differently because the existing research indicates a direct tie between volume and outcome. HRS has not found a similar demonstrated connection between volume and outcome in any of those other services. In fact, in certain of those services, such as psychiatric care, the volume/quality of care correlation may be a negative one. The Proposed Amendments do not change the 350 standard in the existing rule, except in the case where an existing program has been operational for less than a year. Whereas the existing rule would not normally authorize a new program before an existing program is providing 350 procedures per year, the Proposed Amendments relax the standard by allowing a new program to be approved if a program that has been operational for less than one year achieves an average monthly volume of 29 operations. The challengers contend the Proposed Amendments to paragraph 7a are anticompetitive and serve to protect the market shares of existing providers. To the contrary, the more persuasive evidence indicates that the purpose of the 350 standard is not to thwart competition, but, rather, to ensure quality care and efficiency. The Petitioners did not establish that the 350 standard is inappropriate or does not tend to promote quality and efficient care. Without a doubt, HRS' conclusions and the Proposed Amendments reflect a preference for large volume open heart surgery providers and consequently serve to restrict new providers from entering the market. As set forth below, this preference is supported by the existing research in this area. While the correlation between large volume and quality of care is not absolute, the evidence did not demonstrate that HRS has acted arbitrarily in adopting a policy which is aimed at encouraging all open heart programs an opportunity to grow to the 350 level. HRS has adopted a rule designating adult open heart surgery as a tertiary health service. See, Rule 10-5.002(66)8. (previously 5.002(41)8,) Florida Administrative Code. A tertiary health service is defined in Section 381.701(20), as follows: "Tertiary health service" means a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, an cost-effectiveness of such service. To the extent that the 350 standard may work in some instances to favor greater use of existing providers over approval of a new competitor, that result is consistent with the nature of open heart surgery services as a tertiary health service. There is no question that several existing adult open heart surgery programs, including the programs of some of the intervenors in this case who are defending the Proposed Amendments, were approved after numeric need was found using the averaging policy. In many, if not all of those cases, need would not have been found if the "each and every" approach was used. See, Central Florida Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 16 F.L.W. 1515 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The challengers contend that they are being denied equal protection and/or that the "each and every" approach is being used to protect existing providers. As indicated above, the Petitioners have not established that the standards set forth in the National Guidelines are obsolete or inappropriate. The evidence of record in this case was insufficient to conclude that HRS is acting arbitrarily by reenacting standards that are consistent with the National Guidelines. HRS' temporary application of the averaging approach was not consistent with the language of the existing rule or the original interpretation given to the rule by HRS at the time it was adopted. While no evidence was presented that quality of care diminished during the period of time the averaging approach was used, HRS' policy decision to return to standards established in the National Guidelines can not be characterized as arbitrary and capricious. The research contained in the HRS 1988 and 1989 rule promulgation files supports the 350 standard as set forth in Paragraph 7.a. of the Proposed Rule. Most of this research indicates that there is a strong correlative relationship between the volume of open heart surgery performed by a program and the resulting quality of care, both in terms of morbidity and mortality. Specifically, studies performed by Dr. Harold Luft, suggest a relationship between volume of procedures and quality of care. The Luft studies suggest that mortality and morbidity tend to increase as a percentage of total procedures performed when volume is reduced. In contrast, morbidity and mortality tend to decrease as the annual number of procedures is increased. The Challengers have presented no persuasive evidence to rebut these studies. Given the undisputed relationship between the quality and economic efficiency of an open heart surgery program and its volume, HRS reasonably concluded that it is sound health planning policy to normally allow approved providers to achieve and sustain the 350 procedure level before new programs are authorized. The Work Group which assisted in the development of the Proposed Rule Amendments addressed the "each and every" versus "averaging" approach to the 350 standard. Representatives of hospitals which do not offer open heart surgery services were in attendance at the Work Group. No member of the Work Group presented evidence to support the "averaging" approach to the 350 standard nor was any evidence presented to rebut the data contained in the Luft studies. The evidence presented at the hearing in this matter did not establish that the "averaging approach" would in any way improve or contribute to quality assurance. Indeed, it could lead to problems in districts with established high volume open heart surgery providers. For example, if one provider in a service district performs 600 cases and another performs 100 cases, the service district would meet a "350" average standard However, the lower volume provider would be operating at well below the minimum necessary to insure quality of care. In other words, using an averaging approach, need could be found in a district containing an extremely low volume provider, which would probably inhibit the ability of the struggling existing provider to raise its service volume and could be detrimental to the overall quality of care in the district. The National Guidelines and Intersociety Study establish a minimum quality of care threshold at 200 annual procedures per open heart team. The existing rule provides, under the heading "Service Quality" for a "Minimum Service Provision" which requires 200 procedures to be performed annually within 3 years of initiation of service by an open heart program. Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f)5.d., Florida Administrative Code. The 200 procedure requirement was intended to ensure that a new program would operate at a minimum quality of care level. The Proposed Amendments delete this requirement. The challengers contend that HRS is inappropriately substituting the 350 procedure requirement contained in the Proposed Amendments as a new quality of care standard to be applied to open heart programs. The 350 standard is not intended by HRS to be a per se indicator of quality of care, nor is it intended to create a presumption that a program operating below 350 annual procedures provides poor quality of care. While the Petitioners claim that the 350 requirement in the National Guidelines was primarily an economic efficiency provision and was not a quality of care issue, the evidence indicates that the 350 standard was developed with both quality of care and efficiency in mind. Efficiency standards are important to allow a program to be doing enough operations to justify the staffing ratios, the inventory of supplies, and the utilization of the rooms themselves. While the challengers believe that the 350 standard is too high, the evidence was insufficient to establish that there is a more reasonable figure let alone that HRS' reliance upon the National Guidelines was arbitrary. Approximately seven districts would have shown need for a new program in 1993 if an averaging approach was used. However, under the "each and every" interpretation, HRS found there to be zero program need. The challengers point out that HRS has no authority to revoke a CON for a hospital operating an open heart surgery program with a low service volume. They contend that, due to referral patterns, quality of care problems, a shift in demographics, or similar reason, a hospital may be unable to generate a volume of 350 procedures which could preclude the addition of a new program even if there is a need in the district. The calculation of numeric need is only one of many criteria which the Department is required to consider under Section 381.705, Florida Statutes when reviewing applications for open heart surgery certificates of need. The Health Facility and Services Department Act sets forth many criteria which the department must consider when making a determination on an application for certificate of need including its need for the proposal, the existing availability of the proposed service of facility, the impact of the proposal on the cost of providing the service, and the quality of care provided by existing providers and proposed by the applicant. These criteria are consistent with the statutory aim as expressed in Title 42 - Public Health, Chapter 1 Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Part 121 - National Guidelines for Health Planning which provides: "Equal access to quality health care at a reasonable cost ... Cost savings may be achieved without sacrificing the quality of or access to care through more efficient utili- zation of existing resources and increased emphases on ambulatory and community services. Moreover, limitations of certain resources, such as open heart units, can lead to improve- ments in the quality of care while at the same time containing costs." Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 60., page 254. It is important to keep in mind that the 350 standard does not prohibit the approval of a new open heart program if an existing program in the district does not meet this standard. The proposed amendments, as well as existing HRS policy, simply provide that an application for a new program will "not normally" be approved. In other words, the burden of showing need for a new program is shifted to the applicant. The challengers contend that acquiring a CON when there is no numeric need calculated in accordance with the rule is next to impossible. Without question, an applicant's burden in such a situation would be substantially more difficult. However, the evidence does not support the contention that such approval is impossible. In conclusion, the 350 standard is a reasonable threshold criterion to presume need under normal circumstances. It is neither anti-competitive nor unconstitutional to require an applicant to allege and demonstrate the existence of not normal circumstances to overcome this presumption. Because no new program can be added when there is an outstanding approved but yet operational program in existence which could take an undue amount of time coming on line thereby preventing the approval of a new program. The challengers claim that requiring approved programs to become operational before a new program will normally be approved is unreasonable because of the length of time it could take for a newly approved program to come on line. HRS is generally aware of the length of time it takes an approved program to become operational. HRS reasonably resolved the balance of competing considerations by deciding that it should not approve a second new program in a district while there is still an approved program that has not yet become operational. HRS has concluded that it is preferable to allow programs to grow to a volume of 350 annual operations to assure quality and efficiency before adding a new program. The challengers have not established that this decision was arbitrary or that it would be in any way beneficial to allow simultaneous development of two or more adult open heart surgery programs within a service district. There are time restrictions on the implementation of a newly approved program and HRS has authority to void a CON when those restrictions are not met. See, Rule 10-5.018(2), Florida Administrative Code. Approved providers may not simply retain their CONs for open heart surgery services indefinitely without implementing them. If for some reason an approved program failed to commence operations within a reasonable time to the point of creating problems of service accessibility, an applicant could raise this issue as a "not normal" circumstance. The provision in the Proposed Amendments which would normally prevent approval of a new program when there is an outstanding approved but not yet operational program in existence is consistent with HRS' interpretation of the existing rule. WHETHER SUBPARAGRAPH 7.b OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE ONLY ONE NEW PROGRAM CAN BE APPROVED AT A TIME. Paragraph 7.b. of the Proposed Amendments provides that even where the numeric need calculation results in a projected need for more than one new adult open heart program, only one new program per service district may be approved in a given batching cycle. The only evidence presented concerning this issue was the testimony of Ms. Stamm, who asserted that the practice of approving one program at a time ensures that only one new provider will compete with established facilities within a service district and that a new program will have an opportunity for rapid start-up growth in order to reach a safe volume level in a short period of time. By limiting approval to only one new program per planning horizon, the volume and quality of care at existing programs is protected and the continued viability of new providers is assisted. The challengers claim that this provision is arbitrary and capricious because it could prevent the approval of a new open heart surgery program even when numeric need, as determined by the Rule, is present. However, as indicated above, the calculation of numeric need is based upon desired, not maximum levels of operation. Thus, even if numeric need is shown in accordance with the Rule, a new program is not automatically required. Petitioners have not established that HRS' balancing of the conflicting concerns on this issue was arbitrary or capricious. The requirement that only one new program be approved at a time is consistent with HRS' interpretation of the existing rule. WHETHER PARAGRAPH 8 IS ANTICOMPETITIVE, UNDULY RESTRICTIVE, ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. Paragraph 8 of the Proposed Amendments sets forth a new quantitative need formula for pediatric open heart surgery services programs. It provides: 8.9. Pediatric Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. The need for pediatric open heart surgery programs shall be deter- mined on a regional basis in accordance with the pediatric open heart surgery program service areas as defined in sub-subparagraph 2.1. A new pediatric open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved unless the total of resident live births in the pediatric open heart surgery service area, for the most recent calendar year available from the department's Office of Vital Statistics at least 3 months prior to publication of the fixed need pool, minus the number of existing and approved pediatric open heat surgery programs multiplied by 30,000, is at or exceeds 30,000. The 30,000 live birth standard is based upon and consistent with the standards adopted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Section on Cardiology, for use by health planning agencies and health service organizations to evaluate existing pediatric cardiac centers and to establish the need for the development of new centers. The 30,000 live birth standard is set forth in the "Guidelines for Pediatric Cardiology, Diagnostic and Treatment Centers," published in Volume 62, No. 2, American Academy of Pediatrics (1978) (the "Pediatric Guidelines"). Those guidelines were updated in 1990 and the 30,000 live birth standard was retained in the updated version. The Pediatric Guidelines, like the National Guidelines, is a well-respected and readily available research tool that health planners customarily rely upon in evaluating the need for health care programs. The 30,000 live birth standard is also contained in the HRS Children's Medical Services administrative rules and this methodology is consistent with the minimum service volume standards found in the National Guidelines. Unlike the methodology utilized to project need for adult open heart surgery programs, the methodology proposed to project need for pediatric open heart surgery does not utilize a "use rate." This pediatric need methodology assumes a constant use rate and attributes increased need to population growth. St. Mary's argues that the 30,000 live birth standard should not be utilized because the incidence rate of pediatric open heart surgery (the number of procedures per 30,000 births) may change and the standard does not take into account such changes which could be based on advances in medicine, etc. This criticism is highly speculative and does not provide a basis for rejecting the 30,000 live birth standard. While the use rate for adult open heart surgery has generally increased since the open heart rule was adopted in the early 1980s, there is no evidence that the use rate for pediatric open heart surgery programs has increased. St. Mary's contends that the 30,000 live birth standard only takes into account the pediatric population in the neonatal or newborn time period. However, this contention was not supported by the evidence. The 30,000 live birth standard assumes that in the years prior to attaining 30,000 live births, a service area experienced something less than 30,000 live births each year and will experience approximately 30,000 live births in subsequent years, so that an age pyramid is building. The Florida data indicates that if this standard is applied over 14 years, approximately 75 pediatric open heart surgery cases per year would be generated based upon multiple years of approximately 30,000 volume base. Approximately 100-130 cases can be expected if the age cohort is increased to 21. St. Mary's proposed an alternative methodology based upon comments appearing in an article titled "Trends in Cardiac Surgery" from the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 1980. That article suggested that a 380,000 pediatric population base from age 0-14 can be expected to generate 75 pediatric open heart surgery operations. Utilizing the 1970 United States age mix, which indicates that 27.5 percent of all persons are under the age of 14, St. Mary's suggests that the 380,000 pediatric population should be grossed up to a 1.38 million total population base and this total population figure is an appropriate standard for determining when to add a new pediatric program. Serious questions were raised regarding the validity of St. Mary's proposed standard. For example, it appears that the age mix in Florida is significantly different than the age mix figures used by St. Mary's. In sum, the evidence did not establish that St. Mary's proposed standard was more appropriate to use, let alone that HRS acted arbitrarily in adopting the 30,000 live birth standard. Indeed, the evidence established that the 30,000 live birth standard employed in the Proposed Amendments as a basis to project need for pediatric open heart surgery programs is a reasonable basis upon which to plan for pediatric open heart surgery programs. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROHIBITS AN APPLICANT FROM APPLYING FOR BOTH PEDIATRIC AND ADULT OPEN HEART SURGERY AND FOR THAT REASON IS INVALID. Proposed Rule 10-5.011(1)(f)1. states that providers must apply for separate certificates of need for adult and pediatric open heart surgery programs. The existing rule does not expressly state that separate certificates of need are necessary. However, Rule 10-5.008(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires separate letters of intent for each type of service having a separate need methodology, even if the projects are within the same facility. Thus, separate applications are necessary under both the present rule and the proposed amendments because a separate need methodology is stated in both. As discussed above, the Proposed Amendments do not prohibit an applicant from applying for a certificate of need for pediatric open heart surgery services and adult open heart surgery services simultaneously. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SET FORTH A MINIMUM NUMBER OF MIXED PEDIATRIC AND ADULT OPERATIONS WHICH MUST BE PERFORMED IN A MIXED PROGRAM AS A PREDICATE TO THE AWARD OF ANOTHER ADULT PROGRAM. Neither the existing rule nor the Proposed Amendments to the rule specifically address the minimum number of annual operations which must be performed in a "mixed" program before an additional adult program may be added. Thus, any "mixed" adult/pediatric open heart surgery program would have to be performing at least 350 adult procedures before there would be a calculated need for an additional adult open heart program in the district. St. Anthony's argues that this requirement should not apply to "mixed" programs and/or that a lower volume standard should have been adopted for hospitals that operate "mixed" programs. There is considerable confusion as to how to define a "mixed" program. St. Anthony's contends that a "mixed" open heart surgery program is any program that provides open heart surgery services to both adult and pediatric patients. HRS contends that if the programs are separately organized and staffed, the fact that a hospital has both programs is irrelevant to assessing the appropriate volume capacity. HRS considers a "mixed program" as one in which a single team is performing both pediatric and adult open heart surgery. Under this view, a hospital can have both an adult open heart surgery program and a pediatric open heart surgery program without necessarily being considered a "mixed" program. Applying this definition, there is apparently only one program in the state which is a "mixed" program. That program is located at Bayfront/All Children's Hospital. St. Anthony's contends that there are other programs in this state that offer both pediatric and adult open heart surgery. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish that any of these other programs meets the HRS definition of a mixed program. St. Anthony's cites to a provision in the National Guidelines which provides that the minimum number of open heart surgery procedures that should be performed in a "mixed" program is 200, of which 75 should be for children. However, HRS has reasonably concluded that this provision in the National Guidelines was not intended to establish a threshold for the addition of a new adult program. The studies which were the source of this provision did not attempt to address the number of procedures that should be performed in a "mixed" program before a new adult program should be awarded. In view of the extremely small number of "mixed" programs and the lack of clear evidence regarding the optimal number of procedures that should be performed in such programs, HRS has elected to not address "mixed" programs in the existing rule or the Proposed Amendments. For a true "mixed" program, it may not be reasonable or desirable to expect 350 adult surgeries per year. However, the available data is inconclusive and St. Anthony's has not presented persuasive evidence of a more realistic number. Thus, HRS' decision to not adopt a rule of general applicability to address this issue, is not arbitrary or capricious. An applicant in a district with a "mixed" program that is not performing 350 adult procedures per year can apply on a "not normal" basis. WHETHER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INVALID BECAUSE HRS HAS FAILED TO PREPARE A DETAILED ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT, AN ESTIMATE OF THE IMPACT ON COMPETITION, OR DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE DATA AND METHODOLOGY USED IN MAKING THE PROPOSED RULES, THE FAILURE OF WHICH IMPAIRED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE AGENCY. Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to prepare an Economic Impact Statement (EIS) containing the economic impact of the proposed rule on all persons directly affected. HRS assessed the economic impact of its proposed amendments and concluded that there would be no impact because the proposed amendments do not change the projected need for either adult or pediatric programs. As discussed in more detail above, the Proposed Amendments clarify that the 350 target volume must be achieved by each and every existing and approved program before a new program will be approved. The existing rule has been interpreted to require the same thing. While HRS followed an averaging interpretation for a period in the past, that interpretation has been rejected in a series of final orders. Since the averaging interpretation was deemed invalid before these Proposed Amendments, the Proposed Amendments do not change the way need is assessed under the existing rule. Thus, there is no economic impact by reason of the inclusion in the Proposed Amendments of the 350 standard. Likewise, the new methodology for calculating need for pediatric open heart surgery does not change the calculations made under the existing rule. None of the other changes to the existing rule have been shown to have a significant impact on existing providers or applicants. None of the challengers showed that they are able to obtain an economic benefit now that they will be deprived of under the rule as amended nor have they demonstrated any prejudice by reason of HRS' conclusion that the Proposed Amendments would not have an adverse economic impact.
The Issue Whether the second and third sentences of Rule 59C-1.033(7)(c), Florida Administrative Code, are invalid? If so, whether they may be severed from the remainder of the Rule?
Findings Of Fact Subparagraph (7)(c) of the Rule states: Regardless of whether need for a new adult open heart surgery program is shown in paragraph (b) above, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved for a district if the approval would reduce the 12 month total at an existing adult open heart surgery program in the district below 350 open heart surgery operations. In determining whether this condition applies, the Agency will calculate (Uc x Px)(OP + 1). If the result is less than 350, no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved. (Emphasis supplied to indicate the challenged portion of the Rule.) The first sentence sets forth the objective and intent of subparagraph (7)(c) of the Rule: unless there are "not normal circumstances," a new open heart surgery program will not be approved in a district if the approval would reduce the volume below 350 procedures annually at any existing OHS provider in the district. This is the intent and objective of the sentence despite the use of the word "an" to modify the term "existing adult open heart surgery program in the district" used toward the end of the sentence. As was testified by the Agency representative: [T]he entire notion of the rule, the entire intent of the rule is that existing providers maintain the 350 level. I mean, [there's] no question about that, so that has to be considered. (Tr. 3287). Indeed, intent that it is desirable for individual existing OHS providers to perform 350 procedures in 12-month periods is expressed elsewhere in the Rule. And that goal is so desirable, in fact, that new programs in a district are not under normal circumstances to be approved if the 350 level has not been met recently by an existing provider in the district: (7) Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Need Determination. (a) A new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district if any of the following conditions exist: * * * One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; . . . Rule 59C-1.033, F.A.C., (e.s.). Given the clear intent of the Rule as a whole and of the first sentence of subparagraph (7)(c), the formula in the challenged portion of the Rule (the "formula"), should be used to measure and determine whether the approval of a new OHS program would reduce the annual volume of OHS procedures at any existing OHS provider below 350. Under the formula, adult open heart surgeries are projected for each service district. The resulting number is divided by the number of existing OHS programs plus one new OHS program. If calculation results in a number less than 350, the third sentence of the subparagraph purports to carry out the intent of the first sentence of subparagraph (7)(c), that is, "no additional open heart surgery program shall normally be approved." For example, assume 3000 OHS are projected for a service district with five existing programs. Under the formula, 3000 would be divided by six (the existing five plus the proposed program). The result is 500, and the operation of the subparagraph does not prohibit a new OHS program. If, on the other hand, a volume for the district of 3000 were projected and there were eight existing providers, the addition of a ninth program would bring the average below 350 and, by operation of the third sentence, prohibit the approval of a new program. The challenged portion of the Rule, however, does not necessarily implement the objective of the first sentence of subparagraph (7)(c). The calculations in the challenged portion do not determine whether the volume at any specific provider would fall below 350 as the result of a new program. Instead, the calculations measure only the "average" volumes at existing programs plus one new one. A program operating slightly above 350 (such as CRMC), with the addition of a new program (such as the one proposed by Venice) in close enough proximity that their primary service areas significantly overlap, could drop below 350, even though the number of OHS procedures in the district is calculated district-wide to increase and even though the average calculated by the formula exceeds 350. Such a result increases in likelihood when one of the providers in the district (such as Memorial) is projected to have volume significantly above 350. Illustrations of the ineffectiveness of the challenged portion for achieving the clear objective set forth in the first sentence of subpararaph (7)(c) are in CRMC Exhibit no. 58. For example, in 1997, existing OHS providers in District 8 had an average volume of 716. That year CRMC performed only 369 OHS procedures. Had Venice commenced an OHS program in 1997, adverse impact analysis and service area overlap as used by Mr. Baehr in this proceeding show that CRMC would have dropped below 350 procedures in 1997, while the district average would have remained well above 350 despite the addition of a new program.
The Issue Whether the Certificate of Need application (CON 9239) of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") to establish an open heart surgery program at its hospital facility in Hillsborough County should be granted?
Findings Of Fact District 6 District 6 is one of eleven health service planning districts in Florida set up by the "Health Facility and Services Development Act," Sections 408.031-408.045, Florida Statutes. See Section 408.031, Florida Statutes. The district is comprised of five counties: Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Hardee, and Highlands. Section 408.032(5), Florida Statutes. Of the five counties, three have providers of adult open heart surgery services: Hillsborough with three providers, Manatee with two, and Polk with one. There are in District 6 at present, therefore, a total of six existing providers. Existing Providers Hillsborough County The three providers of open heart surgery services ("OHS") in Hillsborough County are Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc., d/b/a Tampa General Hospital ("Tampa General"), St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. ("St. Joseph's"), and University Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a University Community Hospital ("UCH"). For the most part, Interstate 75 runs in a northerly and southerly direction dividing Hillsborough County roughly in half. If the interstate is considered to be a line dividing the eastern half of the county from the western, all three existing providers are in the western half of the county within the incorporated area of the county's major population center, the City of Tampa. Tampa General Opened approximately a century ago, Tampa General has been at its present location in the City of Tampa on Davis Island at the north end of Tampa Bay since 1927. The mission of Tampa General is three-fold. First, it provides a range of care (from simple to complex) for the west central region of the state. Second, it supports both the teaching and research activities of the University of South Florida College of Medicine. Finally and perhaps most importantly, it serves as the "health care safety net" for the people of Hillsborough County. Evidence of its status as the safety net for those its serves is its Case Mix Index for Medicare patients: 2.01. At such a level, "the case mix at Tampa General is one of the highest in the nation in Medicare population." (Tr. 2452). In keeping with its mission of being the county's health care safety net, Tampa General is a full-service acute care hospital. It also provides services unique to the county and the Tampa Bay area: a Level I trauma center, a regional burn center and adult solid organ transplant programs. Tampa General is licensed for 877 beds. Of these, 723 are for acute care, 31 are designated skilled nursing beds, 59 are comprehensive rehabilitation beds, 22 are psychiatry beds, and 42 are neonatal intensive care beds (18 Level II and 24 Level III). Of the 723 acute care beds, 160 are set aside for cardiac care, although they may be occupied from time-to-time by non-cardiac care patients. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. It has an affiliation with the University of South Florida College of Medicine. It offers 13 residency programs, serving approximately 200 medical residents. Tampa General offers diagnostic and interventional cardiac catheterization services in four laboratories dedicated to such services. It has four operating rooms dedicated to open heart surgery. The range of open heart surgery services provided by Tampa General includes heart transplants. Care of the open heart patient immediately after surgery is in a dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit of 18 beds. Following stay in the intensive care unit, the patient is cared for in either a 10-bed intermediate care unit or a 30- bed telemetry unit. Tampa General's full-service open heart surgery program provides high quality of care. St. Joseph's Founded by the Franciscan Sisters of Allegheny, New York, St. Joseph's is an acute care hospital located on Martin Luther King Boulevard in an "inner city kind of area" (Tr. 1586) of the City of Tampa near the geographic center of Hillsborough County. On the hospital campus sit three separate buildings: the main hospital, consisting of 559 beds; across the street, St. Joseph's Women's Hospital, a 197-bed facility dedicated to the care of women; and, opened in 1998, Tampa Children's Hospital, a 120-bed free-standing facility that offers pediatric services and Level II and Level III neonatal intensive care services. In addition to the women's and pediatric facilities, and consistent with the full-service nature of the hospital, St. Joseph's provides behavioral health and oncology services, and most pertinent to this proceeding, open heart surgery and related cardiovascular services. Designated as a Level 2 trauma center, St. Joseph's has a large and active emergency department. There were 90,211 visits to the Emergency Room in 1999, alone. Of the patients admitted annually, fifty-five percent are admitted through the Emergency Room. The formal mission of St. Joseph's organization is to take care of and improve the health of the community it serves. Another aspect of the mission passed down from its religious founders is to take care of the "marginalized, . . . the people that in many senses cannot take care of themselves, [those to whom] society has . . . closed [its] eyes . . .". (Tr. 1584). In keeping with its mission, it is St. Joseph's policy to provide care to anyone who seeks its hospital services without regard to ability to pay. In 1999, the hospital provided $33 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. In total, St. Joseph's provided $121 million in unfunded care during the same year. Not surprisingly, St. Joseph's is also a disproportionate Medicaid provider. The only hospital in the district that provides both adult and pediatric open heart surgery services, St. Joseph's has three dedicated OHS surgical suites, a 14-bed unit dedicated to cardiovascular intensive care for its adult OHS patients, a 12-bed coronary care unit and 86 progressive care beds, all with telemetry capability. St. Joseph's provides high quality of care in its OHS. UCH University Community Hospital, Inc., is a private, not-for-profit corporation. It operates two hospital facilities: the main hospital ("UCH") a 431-bed hospital on Fletcher Avenue in north Tampa, and a second 120-bed hospital in Carrollwood. UCH is accredited by the JCAHO "with commendation," the highest rating available. It provides patient care regardless of ability to pay. UCH's cardiac surgery program is called the "Pepin Heart & Vascular Institute," after Art Pepin, "a 14-year heart transplant recipient [and] . . . the oldest heart transplant recipient in the nation alive today." (Tr. 2841). A Temple Terrace resident, Mr. Pepin also helped to fund the start of the institute. Its service area for tertiary services, including OHS, includes all of Hillsborough County, and extends into south Pasco County and Polk County. The Pepin Institute has excellent facilities and equipment. It has three dedicated OHS operating suites, three fully-equipped "state-of-the-art" cardiac catheterization laboratories equipped with special PTCA or angioplasty devices, and several cardiology care units specifically for OHS/PTCA services. Immediately following surgery, OHS patients go to a dedicated 8-bed cardiovascular intensive care unit. From there patients proceed to a dedicated 20-bed progressive care unit ("PCU"), comprised of all private rooms. There is also a 24-bed PCU dedicated to PTCA patients. There is another 22-bed interventional unit that serves as an overflow unit for patients receiving PTCA or cardiac catheterization. UCH has a 22-bed medical cardiology unit for chest pain observation, congestive heart failure, and other cardiac disorders. Staffing these units requires about 110 experienced, full-time employees. UCH has a special "chest pain" Emergency Room with specially-trained cardiac nurses and defined protocols for the treatment of chest pain and heart attacks. UCH offers a free van service for its UCH patients and their families that operates around the clock. As in the case of the other two existing providers of OHS services in Hillsborough Counties, UCH provides a full range of cardiovascular services at high quality. Manatee County The two existing providers of adult open heart surgery services in Manatee County are Manatee Memorial Hospital, Inc., and Blake Medical Center, Inc. Neither are parties in this proceeding. Although Manatee Memorial filed a petition for formal administrative hearing seeking to overturn the preliminary decision of the Agency, the petition was withdrawn before the case reached hearing. Polk County The existing provider of adult open heart surgery services in Polk County is Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. ("Lakeland"). Licensed for 851 beds, Lakeland is a large, not-for- profit, tertiary regional hospital. In 1999, Lakeland admitted approximately 30,000 patients. In fiscal 1999, there were about 105,000 visits to Lakeland's Emergency Room. Lakeland provides a wide range of acute care services, including OHS and diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheterization. It draws its OHS patients from the Lakeland urban area, the rest of Polk County, eastern Hillsborough County (particularly from Plant City), and some of the surrounding counties. Lakeland has a high quality OHS program that provides high quality of care to its patients. It has two dedicated OHS surgical suites and a third surgical suite equipped and ready for OHS procedures on an as-needed basis. Its volume for the last few years has been relatively flat. Lakeland offers interventional radiology services, a trauma center, a high-risk obstetrics service, oncology, neonatal intensive care, pediatric intensive care, radiation therapy, alcohol and chemical dependency, and behavioral sciences services. Lakeland treats all patients without regard to their ability to pay, and provides a substantial amount of charity care, amounting in fiscal year 1999 to $20 million. The Applicant Brandon Regional Hospital ("Brandon") is a 255-bed hospital located in Brandon, Florida, an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County east of Interstate 75. Included among Brandon's 255 beds are 218 acute care beds, 15 hospital-based skilled nursing unit beds, 14 tertiary Level II neonatal intensive care unit ("NICU") beds, and 8 tertiary Level III NICU beds. Brandon offers a wide array of medical specialties and services to its patients including cardiology; internal medicine; critical care medicine; family practice; nephrology; pulmonary medicine; oncology/hematology; infectious disease; neurology; psychiatry; endocrinology; gastroenterology; physical medicine; rehabilitation; radiation oncology; pathology; respiratory therapy; and anesthesiology. Brandon operates a mature cardiology program which includes inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization, electrocardiography, stress testing, and echocardiography. The Brandon medical staff includes 22 Board-certified cardiologists who practice both interventional and invasive cardiology. Board certification is a prerequisite to maintaining cardiology staff privileges at Brandon. Brandon's inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization program was initiated in 1989 and has performed in excess of 800 inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures per year since 1996. Brandon's daily census has increased from 159 to 187 for the period 1997 to 1999 commensurate with the burgeoning population growth in Brandon's primary service area. Brandon's Emergency Room is the third busiest in Hillsborough County and has more visits than Tampa General's Emergency Room. From 1997- 1999, Brandon's Emergency Room visits increased from 43,000 to 53,000 per year and at the time of hearing were expected to increase an additional 5-6 percent during the year 2000. Brandon has also recently expanded many services to accommodate the growing health care needs of the Brandon community. For example, Brandon doubled the square footage of its Emergency Room and added 17 treatment rooms. It has also implemented an outpatient diagnostic and rehabilitation center, increased the number of labor, delivery and recovery suites, and created a high-risk ante-partum observation unit. Brandon was recently approved for 5 additional tertiary Level II NICU beds and 3 additional tertiary Level III NICU beds which increased Brandon's Level II/III NICU bed complement to 22 beds. Brandon is a Level 5 hospital within HCA's internal ranking system, which is the company's highest facility level in terms of service, revenue, and patient service area population. Brandon has been ranked as one of the Nation's top 100 hospitals by HCIA/Mercer, Inc., based on Brandon's clinical and financial performance. The Proposal On September 15, 1999, Brandon submitted to AHCA CON Application 9239, its third application for an open heart surgery program in the past few years. (CON 9085 and 9169, the two earlier applications, were both denied.) The second of the three, CON 9169, sought approval on the basis of the same two "not normal" circumstances alleged by Brandon to justify approval in this proceeding. CON 9239 addresses the Agency's January 2002 planning horizon. Brandon proposes to construct two dedicated cardiovascular operating rooms ("CV-OR"), a six-bed dedicated cardiovascular intensive care unit ("CVICU"), a pump room and sterile prep room all located in close proximity on Brandon's first floor. The costs, methods of construction, and design of Brandon's proposed CV-OR, CVICU, pump room, and sterile prep room are reasonable. As a condition of CON approval, Brandon will contribute $100,000 per year for five years to the Hillsborough County Health Care Program for use in providing health care to the homeless, indigent, and other needy residents of Hillsborough County. The administration at Brandon is committed to establishing an adult open heart surgery program. The proposal is supported by the medical and nursing staff. It is also supported by the Brandon community. The Brandon Community in East Hillsborough County Brandon, Florida, is a large unincorporated community in Hillsborough County, east of Interstate 75. The Brandon area is one of the fastest growing in the state. In the last ten years alone, the area's population has increased from approximately 90,000 to 160,000. An incorporated Brandon municipality (depending on the boundaries of the incorporation) has the potential to be the eighth largest city in Florida. The Brandon community's population is projected to further increase by at least 50,000 over the next five to ten years. Brandon Regional Hospital's primary service area not only encompasses the Brandon community, but further extends throughout Hillsborough County to a populous of nearly 285,000 persons. The population of Brandon's primary service area is projected to increase to 309,000 by the year 2004, of which approximately 32,000 are anticipated to be over the age of 65, making Brandon's population "young" relative to much of the rest of the State. The community of Brandon has attracted several new large housing developments which are likely to accelerate its projected growth. According to the Hillsborough County City- County Planning Commission, six of the eleven largest subdivisions of single-family homes permitted in 1998 are located nearby. For example, the infrastructure is in place for an 8,000-acre housing development east of Brandon which consists of 7,500 homes and is projected to bring in 30,000 people over the next 5-10 years. Two other large housing developments will bring an additional 5,000-10,000 persons to the Brandon area. The community of Brandon is also an attractive area for relocating businesses. Recent additions to the Brandon area include, among others, CitiGroup Corporation, Atlantic Lucent Technologies, Household Finance, Ford Motor Credit, and Progressive Insurance. CitiGroup Corporation alone supplemented the area's population with approximately 5,000 persons. The community of Brandon has experienced growth in the development of health care facilities with 5 new assisted living facilities and one additional assisted living facility under construction. The average age of the residents of these facilities is much higher than of the Brandon area as a whole. Existing Providers' Distance from Brandon's PSA Brandon's primary service area ("PSA") is comprised of 12 zip code areas "in and around Brandon, essentially eastern Hillsborough County." (Tr. 1071). Using the center of each zip code in Brandon's primary service area as the location for each resident of the zip code area, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of 15 miles from Tampa General, 16.4 miles from St. Joseph's, 17.3 miles from UCH and 24.6 miles from Lakeland Regional Medical Center. In contrast, they are only 7.7 miles from Brandon Regional Hospital. Using the same methodology, the residents of Brandon's PSA are an average of more than 40 miles from Blake Medical Center (44.9 miles) and Manatee Memorial (41 miles). Numeric Need Publication Rule 59C-1.033, Florida Administrative Code (the "Open Heart Surgery Program Rule" or the "Rule") specifies a methodology for determining numeric need for new open heart surgery programs in health planning districts. The methodology is set forth in section (7) of the Rule. Part of the methodology is a formula. See subsection (b) of Section (7) of the Rule. Using the formula, the Agency calculated numeric need in the District for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. The calculation yielded a result of 3.27 additional programs needed to serve the District by January 1, 2002. But calculation of numeric need under the formula is not all that is entailed in the complete methodology for determining numeric need. Numeric need is also determined by taking other factors into consideration. The Agency is to determine net need based on the formula "[p]rovided that the provisions of paragraphs (7)(a) and (7) (c) do not apply." Rule 59C-1.033(b), Florida Administrative Code. Paragraph (7)(a) states, "[a] new adult open heart surgery program shall not normally be approved in the district" if the following condition (among others) exists: 2. One or more of the operational adult open heart surgery programs in the district that were operational for at least 12 months as of 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool performed less than 350 adult open heart surgery operations during the 12 months ending 3 months prior to the beginning date of the quarter of the publication of the fixed need pool; . . . Rule 59C-1.033(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Both Blake Medical Center and Manatee Memorial Hospital in Manatee County were operational and performed less that 350 adult open heart surgery operations in the qualifying time periods described by subparagraph (7)(a)2., of the Rule. (Blake reported 221 open heart admissions for the 12-month period ending March 31, 1999; Manatee Memorial for the same period reported 319). Because of the sub-350 volume of the two providers, the Rule's methodology yielded a numeric need of "0" new open heart surgery programs in District 6 for the January 2002 Planning Horizon. In other words, the numeric need of 3.27 determined by calculation pursuant to the formula prior to consideration of the programs described in (7)(a)2.1, was "zeroed out" by operation of the Rule. Accordingly, a numeric need of zero for the district in the applicable planning horizon was published on behalf of the Agency in the January 29, 1999, issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly. No Impact on Manatee County Providers In 1998, only one resident of Brandon's PSA received an open heart surgery procedure in Manatee County. For the same period only two residents from Brandon's PSA received an angioplasty procedure in Manatee County. These three residents received the services at Manatee Memorial. Of the two Manatee County programs, Manatee Memorial consistently has a higher volume of open heart surgery cases and according to the latest data available at the time of hearing has "hit the mark" (Tr. 1546) of 350 procedures annually. Very few residents from other District 6 counties receive cardiac services in Manatee County. Similarly, very few Manatee county residents migrate from Manatee County to another District 6 hospital to receive cardiac services. In 1998, only 19 of a total 1,209 combined open heart and angioplasty procedures performed at either Blake or Manatee Memorial originated in the other District 6 counties and only two were from the Brandon area. Among the 6,739 Manatee County residents discharged from a Florida hospital in calendar year 1998 following any cardiovascular procedure (MDC-5), only 58(0.9 percent) utilized one of the other providers in District 6, and none were discharged from Brandon. Among the 643 open heart surgeries performed on Manatee County residents in 1998, only 17 cases were seen at one of the District 6 open heart programs outside of Manatee County. There is, therefore, practically no patient exchange between Manatee County and the remainder of the District. In sum, there is virtually no cardiac patient overlap between Manatee County and Brandon's primary service area. The development of an open heart surgery program at Brandon will have no appreciable or meaningful impact on the Manatee County providers. CON 9169 In CON 9169, Brandon applied for an open heart surgery program on the basis of special circumstances due to no impact on low volume providers in Manatee County. The application was denied by AHCA. The State Agency Action Report ("SAAR") on CON 9169, dated June 17, 1999, in a section of the SAAR denominated "Special Circumstances," found the application to demonstrate "that a program at Brandon would not impact the two Manatee hospitals . . .". (UCH Ex. No. 6, p. 5). The "Special Circumstances" section of the SAAR on CON 9169, however, does not conclude that the lack of impact constitutes special circumstances. In follow-up to the finding of the application's demonstration of no impact to the Manatee County, the SAAR turned to impact on the non-Manatee County providers in District The SAAR on CON 9169 states, "it is apparent that a new program in Brandon would impact existing providers [those in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] in the absence of significant open heart surgery growth." Id. In reference to Brandon's argument in support of special circumstances based on the lack of impact to the Manatee County providers, the CON 9169 SAAR states: [T]he applicant notes the open heart need formula should be applied to District 6 excluding Manatee County, which would result in the need for several programs. This argument ignores the provision of the rule that specifies that the need cannot exceed one. (UCH No. 6, p. 7). The Special Circumstances Section of the SAAR on CON 9169 does not deal directly with whether lack of impact to the Manatee County providers is a special circumstance justifying one additional program. Instead, the Agency disposes of Brandon's argument in the "Summary" section of the SAAR. There AHCA found Brandon's special circumstances argument to fail because "no impact on low volume providers" is not among those special circumstances traditionally or previously recognized in case law and by the Agency: To demonstrate need under special circumstances, the applicant should demonstrate one or more of the following reasons: access problems to open heart surgery; capacity limits of existing providers; denial of access based on payment source or lack thereof; patients are seeking care outside the district for service; improvement of care to underserved population groups; and/or cost savings to the consumer. The applicant did not provide any documentation in support of these reasons. (UCH No. 6, p. 29). Following reference to the Agency's publication of zero need in District 6, moreover, the SAAR reiterated that [t]he implementation of another program in Hillsborough County is expected to significantly [a]ffect existing programs, in particular Tampa General Hospital, an important indigent care provider. (Id.) Typical "not normal circumstances" that support approval of a new program were described at hearing by one health planner as consisting of a significant "gap" in the current health care delivery system of that service. Typical Not Normal Circumstances Just as in CON 9169, none of the typical "not normal" circumstances" recognized in case law and with which the Agency has previous experience are present in this case. The six existing OHS programs in District 6 have unused capacity, are available, and are adequate to meet the projected OHS demand in District 6, in Hillsborough County ("County"), and in Brandon's proposed primary service area ("PSA"). All three County OHS providers are less than 17 miles from Brandon. There are, therefore, no major service geographic gaps in the availability of OHS services. Existing providers in District 6 have unused capacity to meet OHS projected demand in January 2002. OHS volume for District 6 will increase by only 179 surgeries. This is modest growth, and can easily be absorbed by the existing providers. In fact, existing OHS providers have previously handled more volume than what is projected for 2002. In 1995, 3,313 OHS procedures were generated at the six OHS programs. Yet, only 3,245 procedures are projected for 2002. The demand in 1995 was greater than what is projected for 2002. Neither population growth nor demographic characteristics of Brandon's PSA demonstrate that existing programs cannot meet demand. The greatest users of OHS services are the elderly. In 1999, the percentage in District 6 was similar to the Florida average; 18.25 percent for District 6, 18.38 percent for the state. The elderly percentage in Hillsborough County was less: 13.21 percent. The elderly component in Brandon's PSA was less still: 10.44 percent. In 2004, about 18.5 percent of Florida and District 6 residents are projected to be elderly. In contrast, only 10.5 percent of PSA residents are expected to be elderly. Brandon's PSA is "one of the younger defined population segments that you could find in the State of Florida" (Tr. 2892) and likely to remain so. Brandon's PSA will experience limited growth in OHS volume. Between 1999 - 2002, OHS volume will grow by only 36. The annual growth thereafter is only 13 surgeries. This is "very modest" growth and is among the "lowest numbers" of incremental growth in the State. Existing OHS providers can easily absorb this minimal growth. Brandon's PSA, is not an underserved area . . . there is excellent access to existing providers and . . . the market in this service area is already quite competitive. There is not a single competitor that dominates. In fact, the four existing providers [in Hillsborough and Polk Counties] compete quite vigorously. (Tr. 2897). Existing OHS programs in District 6 provide very good quality of care. The surgeons at the programs are excellent. Dr. Gandhi, testifying in support of Brandon's application, testified that he was very comfortable in referring his patients for OHS services to St. Joseph and Tampa General, having, in fact, been comfortable with his father having had OHS at Tampa General. Likewise, Dr. Vijay and his group, also supporters of the Brandon application, split time between Bayonet Point and Tampa General. Dr. Vijay is very proud to be associated with the OHS program at Tampa General. Lakeland also operates a high quality OHS program. In its application, Brandon did not challenge the quality of care at the existing OHS programs in District 6. Nor did Brandon at hearing advance as reasons for supporting its application, capacity constraints, inability of existing providers to absorb incremental growth in OHS volume or failure of existing providers to meet the needs of the residents of Brandon's primary service area. The Agency, in its preliminary decision on the application, agreed that typical "not normal" circumstances in this case are not present. Included among these circumstances are those related to lack of "geographic access." The Agency's OHS Rule includes a geographic access standard of two hours. It is undisputed that all District 6 residents have access to OHS services at multiple OHS providers in the District and outside the District within two hours. The travel time from Brandon to UCH or Tampa General, moreover, is usually less than 30 minutes anytime during the day, including peak travel time. Travel time from Brandon to St. Joseph's is about 30 minutes. There are times, however, when travel time exceeds 30 minutes. There have been incidents when traffic congestion has prevented emergency transport of Brandon patients suffering myocardial infarcts from reaching nearby open heart surgery providers within the 30 minutes by ground ambulance. Delays in travel are not a problem in most OHS cases. In the great majority, procedures are elective and scheduled in advance. OHS procedures are routinely scheduled days, if not weeks, after determining that the procedure is necessary. This high percentage of elective procedures is attributed to better management of patients, better technology, and improved stabilizing medications. The advent of drugs such as thrombolytic therapy, calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, and anti-platelet medications have vastly improved stabilization of patients who present at Emergency Rooms with myocardial infarctions. In its application, Brandon did not raise outmigration as a not-normal circumstance to support its proposal and with good reason. Hillsborough County residents generally do not leave District 6 for OHS. In fact, over 96 percent of County residents receive OHS services at a District 6 provider. Lack of out-migration shows two significant facts: (a) existing OHS programs are perceived to be reasonably accessible; and (2) County residents are satisfied with the quality of OHS services they receive in the County. This 96 percent retention rate is even more impressive considering there are many OHS programs and options available to County residents within a two-hour travel time. In contrast, there are two low-volume OHS providers in Manatee County, one of them being Blake. Unlike Hillsborough County residents, only 78 percent of Manatee County residents remain in District 6 for OHS services. Such outmigration shows that these residents prefer to bypass closer programs, and travel further distances, to receive OHS services at high-volume facility in District 8, which they regard as offering a higher quality of service. In its Application, Brandon does not raise economic access as a "not normal" circumstance. In fact, Brandon concedes that the demand for OHS services by Medicaid and indigent patients is very limited because Brandon's PSA is an affluent area. Brandon does not "condition" its application on serving a specific number or percentage of Medicaid or indigent patients. There are no financial barriers to accessing OHS services in District 6. All OHS providers in Hillsborough County and LRMC provide services to Medicaid and indigent patients, as needed. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve service or care to Medicaid or indigent patient populations. Tampa General is the "safety net" provider for health care services to all County residents. Tampa General is an OHS provider geographically accessible to Brandon's PSA. Tampa General actively services the PSA now for OHS. Brandon did not demonstrate cost savings to the patient population of its PSA if it were approved. Approving Brandon is not needed to improve cost savings to the patient population. Brandon based its OHS and PTCA charges on the average charge for PSA residents who are serviced at the existing OHS providers. While that approach is acceptable, Brandon does not propose a charge structure which is uniquely advantageous for patients. Restated, patients would not financially benefit if Brandon were approved. Tertiary Service Open Heart Surgery is defined as a tertiary service by rule. A "tertiary health service" is defined in Section 408.032(17), Florida Statutes, as follows: health service, which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost- effectiveness of such service. As a tertiary service, OHS is necessarily a referral service. Most hospitals, lacking OHS capability, transfer their patients to providers of the service. One might expect providers of open heart surgery in Florida in light of OHS' status as a tertiary service to be limited to regional centers of excellence. The reality of the six hospitals that provide open heart surgery services in District 6 defies this health-planning expectation. While each of the six provides OHS services of high quality, they are not "regional" centers since all are in the same health planning district. Rather than each being a regional center, the six together comprise more localized providers that are dispersed throughout a region, quite the opposite of a center for an entire region. Brandon's Allegations of Special Circumstances. Brandon presents two special circumstances for approval of its application. The first is that consideration of the low-volume Manatee County providers should not operate to "zero out" the numeric need calculated by the formula. The second relates to transfers and occasional problems with transfers for Brandon patients in need of emergency open heart services. "Time is Muscle" Lack of blood flow to the heart during a myocardial infarction ("MI") results in loss of myocardium (heart muscle). The longer the blood flow is disrupted or diminished, the more myocardium is lost. The more myocardium lost, the more likely the patient will die or, should the patient survive, suffer severe reduction in quality of life. The key to good patient outcome when a patient is experiencing an acute MI is prompt evaluation and rapid treatment upon presentation at the hospital. Restoration of blood flow to the heart (revascularization) is the goal of the treating physician once it is recognized that a patient is suffering an MI. If revascularization is not commenced within 2 hours of the onset of an acute MI, an MI patient's potential for recovery is greatly diminished. The need for prompt revascularization for a patient suffering an MI is summed up in the phrase "time is muscle," a phrase accepted as a maxim by cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons. Recent advances in modern medicine and technology have improved the ability to stabilize and treat patients with acute MIs and other cardiac traumas. The three primary treatment modalities available to a patient suffering from an MI are: 1) thrombolytics; 2) angioplasty and stent placement; and, 3) open heart surgery. Because of the advancement of the effectiveness of thrombolytics, thrombolytic therapy has become the standard of care for treating MIs. Thrombolytic therapy is the administration of medication to dissolve blood clots. Administered intravenously, thrombolytic medication begins working within minutes to dissolve the clot causing the acute MI and therefore halt the damage done by an MI to myocardium. The protocols to administer thrombolysis are similar among hospitals. If a patient presents with chest pain and the E.R. physician identifies evidence of an active heart attack, thrombolysis is normally administered. If the E.R. physician is uncertain, a cardiologist is quickly contacted to evaluate the patient. Achieving good outcomes in cases of myocardial infarctions requires prompt consultation with the patient, competent clinical assessment, and quick administration of appropriate treatment. The ability to timely evaluate patient conditions for MI, and timely administer thrombolytic therapy, is measured and evaluated nationally by the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. The National Registry makes the measurement according to a standard known as "door-to-needle" time. This standard measures the time between the patient's presentation at the E.R. and the time the patient is initially administered thrombolytic medication by injection intravenously. Patients often begin to respond to thrombolysis within 10-15 minutes. Consistent with the maxim, "time is muscle," the shorter the door-to-needle time, the better the chance of the patient's successful recovery. The effectiveness of thrombolysis continues to increase. For example, the advent of a drug called Reapro blocks platelet activity, and has increased the efficacy rate of thrombolysis to at least 85 percent. As one would expect, then, thrombolytic therapy is the primary method of revascularization available to patients at Brandon. Due to the lack of open heart surgery backup, moreover, Brandon is precluded by Agency rule from offering angioplasty in all but the most extreme cases: those in which it is determined that a patient will not survive a transfer. While Brandon has protocols, authority, and equipment to perform angioplasty when a patient is not expected to survive a transfer, physicians are reluctant to perform angioplasty without open heart backup because of complications that can develop that require open heart surgery. Angioplasty, therefore, is not usually a treatment modality available to the MI patient at Brandon. Although the care of choice for MI treatment, thrombolytics are not always effective. To the knowledge of the cardiologists who testified in this proceeding, there is not published data on the percentage of patients for whom thrombolytics are not effective. But from the cardiologists who offered their opinions on the percentage in the proceeding, it can be safely found that the percentage is at least 10 percent. Thrombolytics are not ordered for these patients because they are inappropriate in the patients' individual cases. Among the contraindications for thrombolytics are bleeding disorders, recent surgery, high blood pressure, and gastrointestinal bleeding. Of the patients ineligible for thrombolytics, a subset, approximately half, are also ineligible for angioplasty. The other half are eligible for angioplasty. Under the most conservative projections, then at least 1 in 20 patients suffering an MI would benefit from timely angioplasty intervention for which open heart surgery back-up is required in all but the rarest of cases. In 1997, 351 people presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. In 1998, the number of MIs increased to 427. In 1999, 428 patients presented to Brandon's Emergency Room suffering from an acute MI. At least 120 (10 percent) of the total 1206 MI patients presenting to Brandon's Emergency Room from 1997 to 1999 would have been ineligible for thrombolytics as a means of revascularization. Of these, half would have been ineligible for angioplasty while the other half would have been eligible. Sixty, therefore, is the minimum number of patients from 1997 to 1999 who would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon using the most conservative estimate. Transfers of Emergency Patients Those patients who presented at Brandon's Emergency Room with acute MI and who could not be stabilized with thrombolytic therapy had to be transferred to one of the nearby providers of open heart surgery. In 1998, Brandon transferred an additional 190 patients who did not receive a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon for either angioplasty or open heart surgery. For the first 9 months of 1999, 114 such transfers were made. Thus, in 1998 alone, Brandon transferred a total of 516 cardiac patients to existing providers for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery, more than any other provider in the District. In 1999, Brandon made 497 such transfers. Not all of these were emergency transfers, of course. But in the three years between 1997 and 1999 at least 60 patients were in need of emergency transfers who would benefit from angioplasty with open heart backup. Of those Brandon patients determined to be in need of urgent angioplasty or open heart surgery, all must be transferred to existing providers either by ambulance or by helicopter. Ambulance transfer is accomplished through ambulances maintained by the Hillsborough County Fire Department. Due to the cardiac patient's acuity level, ambulance transfer of such patients necessitates the use of ambulances equipped with Advanced Life Support Systems (ALS) in order to monitor the patient's heart functions and to treat the patient should the patient's condition deteriorate. Hillsborough County operates 18 ambulances. All have ALS capability. Patients with less serious medical problems are sometimes transported by private ambulances equipped with Basic Life Support Systems (BLS) that lack the equipment to appropriately care for the cardiac patient. But, private ambulances are not an option to transport critically ill cardiac patients because they are only equipped with BLS capability. Private ambulances, moreover, do not make interfacility transports of cardiac patients between Hillsborough County hospitals. There are many demands on the ambulance transfer system in Hillsborough County. Hillsborough County's 18 ALS ambulances cover in excess of 960 square miles. Of these 18 ambulances, only three routinely operate within the Brandon area. Hillsborough County ambulances respond to 911 calls before requests for interfacility transfers of cardiac patients and are extremely busy responding to automobile accidents, especially when it rains. As a result, Hillsborough County ambulances are not always available on a timely basis when needed to perform an interfacility transfer of a cardiac patient. At times, due to inordinate delay caused by traffic congestion, inter-facility ambulance transport, even if the ambulance is appropriately equipped, is not an option for cardiac patients urgently in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. It has happened, for example, that an ambulance has appeared at the hospital 8 hours after a request for transport. Some cardiac surgeons will not utilize ground transport as a means of transporting urgent open heart and angioplasty cases. Expeditious helicopter transport in Hillsborough County is available as an alternative to ground transport. But, it too, from time-to-time, is problematic for patients in urgent need of angioplasty or open heart surgery. Tampa General operates two helicopters through AeroMed, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County. AeroMed's two helicopters are not exclusively devoted to cardiac patients. They are also utilized for the transfer of emergency medical and trauma patients, further taxing the availability of AeroMed helicopters to transfer patients in need of immediate open heart surgery or angioplasty. BayCare operates the only other helicopter transport service serving Hillsborough County. BayCare maintains several helicopters, only one of which is located in Hillsborough County at St. Joseph's. BayCare helicopters are not equipped with intra-aortic balloon pump capability, thereby limiting their use in transporting the more complicated cardiac patients. Helicopter transport is not only a traumatic experience for the patient, but time consuming. Once a request has been made by Brandon to transport a patient in need of urgent intervention, it routinely takes two and a half hours, with instances of up to four hours, to effectuate a helicopter transfer. At the patient's beside, AeroMed personnel must remove the patient's existing monitors, IVS, and drips, and refit the patient with AeroMed's equipment in preparation for flight. In more complicated cases requiring the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump, the patient's balloon pump placed at Brandon must be removed and substituted with the balloon pump utilized by AeroMed. Further delays may be experienced at the receiving facility. The national average of the time from presentation to commencement of the procedure is reported to be two hours. In most instances at UCH, it is probably 90 minutes although "[t]here are of course instances where it would be much faster . . .". (Tr. 3212). On the other hand, there are additional delays from time-to-time. "[P]erhaps the longest circumstance would be when all the labs are full . . . or . . . even worse . . . if all the staff has just left for the day and they are almost home, to then turn them around and bring them all back." (Id.) Specific Cases Involving Transfers Delays in the transfer process were detailed at hearing by Brandon cardiologists with regard to specific Brandon patients. In cases in which "time is muscle," delay is critical except for one subset of such cases: that in which, no matter what procedure is available and no matter how timely that procedure can be provided, the patient cannot be saved. Craig Randall Martin, M.D., Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiovascular Disease, and an expert in cardiology, wrote to AHCA in support of the application by detailing two "examples of patients who were in an extreme situation that required emergent, immediate intervention . . . [intervention that could not be provided] at Brandon Hospital." (Tr. 408). One of these concerned a man in his early sixties who was a patient at Brandon the night and morning of October 13 and 14, 1998. It represents one of the rare cases in which an emergency angioplasty was performed at Brandon even though the hospital does not have open heart backup. The patient had presented to the Emergency Room at approximately 11:00 p.m., on October 13 with complaints of chest pain. Although the patient had a history of prior infarctions, PTCA procedures, and onset diabetes, was obese, a smoker and had suffered a stroke, initial evaluation, including EKG and blood tests, did not reveal an MI. The patient was observed and treated for what was probably angina. With the subsiding of the chest pain, he was appropriately admitted at 2:30 a.m. to a non- intensive cardiac telemetry bed in the hospital. At 3:00 a.m., he was observed to be stable. A few hours or so later, the patient developed severe chest pain. The telemetry unit indicated a very slow heart rate. Transferred to the intensive care unit, his blood pressure was observed to be very low. Aware of the seriousness of the patient's condition, hospital personnel called Dr. Martin. Dr. Martin arrived on the scene and determined the patient to be in cardiogenic shock, an extreme situation. In such a state, a patient has a survival rate of 15 to 20 percent, unless revascularization occurs promptly. If revascularization is timely, the survival rate doubles to 40 percent. Coincident with the cardiogenic shock, the patient was suffering a complete heart block with a number of blood clots in the right coronary artery. The patient's condition, to say the least, was grave. Dr. Martin described the action taken at Brandon: . . . I immediately called in the cardiac catheterization team and moved the patient to the catheterization laboratory. * * * Somewhere around 7:30 in the morning, I put a temporary pacemaker in, performed a diagnostic catheterization that showed that one of his arteries was completely clotted. He, even with the pacemaker giving him an adequate heart rate, and even with the use of intravenous medication for his blood pressure, . . . was still in cardiogenic shock. * * * And I placed an intra-aortic balloon pump . . ., a special pump that fits in the aorta and pumps in synchrony with the heart and supports the blood pressure and circulation of the muscle. That still did not alleviate the situation . . . an excellent indication to do a salvage angioplasty on this patient. I performed the angioplasty. It was not completely successful. The patient had a respiratory arrest. He required intubation, required to be put on a ventilator for support. And it became apparent to me that I did not have the means to save this patient at [Brandon]. I put a call to the . . . cardiac surgeon of choice . . . . [Because the surgeon was on vacation], [h]is associate [who happened to be in the operating room at UCH] called me back immediately . . . and said ["]Yes, I'll take your patient. Send him to me immediately, I will postpone my current case in order to take care of your patient.["] At that point, we called for helicopter transport, and there were great delays in obtaining [the] transport. The patient was finally transferred to University Community Hospital, had surgery, was unsuccessful and died later that afternoon. (Tr. 409-412). By great delays in the transport, Dr. Martin referred to inability to obtain prompt helicopter transport. University Community Hospital, the receiving hospital, was not able to find a helicopter. Dr. Martin, therefore, requested Tampa General (a third hospital uninvolved from the point of being either the transferring or the receiving hospital) to send one of its two helicopters to transfer the patient from Brandon to UCH. Dr. Martin described Tampa General's response: They balked. And I did not know they balked until an hour later. And I promptly called them back, got that person on the telephone, we had a heated discussion. And after that person checked with their supervisor, the helicopter was finally sent. There was at least an hour-and-a-half delay in obtaining a helicopter transport on this patient that particular morning that was unnecessary. And that is critical when you have a patient in this condition. (Tr. 413, emphasis supplied.) In the case of this patient, however, the delay in the transport from Brandon to the UCH cardiovascular surgery table, in all likelihood, was not critical to outcome. During the emergency angioplasty procedure at Brandon, some of the clot causing the infarction was dislodged. It moved so as to create a "no-flow state down the right coronary artery. In other words, . . ., it cut off[] the microcirculation . . . [so that] there is no place for the blood . . . to get out of the artery. And that's a devastating, deadly problem." (Tr. 2721). This "embolization, an unfortunate happenstance [at times] with angioplasty", id., probably sealed the patient's fate, that is, death. It is very likely that the patient with or without surgery, timely or not, would not have survived cardiogenic shock, complete heart block, and the circumstance of no circulation in the right coronary artery that occurred during the angioplasty procedure. Adithy Kumar Gandhi, M.D., is Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Cardiology. Employed by the Brandon Cardiology Group, a three-member group in Brandon, Dr. Gandhi was accepted as an expert in the field of cardiology in this proceeding. Dr. Gandhi testified about two patients in whose cases delays occurred in transferring them to St. Joseph’s. He also testified about a third case in which it took two hours to transfer the patient by helicopter to Tampa General. The first case involves an elderly woman. She had multiple-risk factors for coronary disease including a family history of cardiac disease and a personal history of “chest pain.” (Tr. 2299). The patient presented at Brandon’s Emergency Room on March 17, 1999 at around 2:30 p.m. Seen by the E.R. physician about 30 minutes later, she was placed in a monitored telemetry bed. She was determined to be stable. During the next two days, despite family and personal history pointing to a potentially serious situation, the patient refused to submit to cardiac catheterization at Brandon as recommended by Dr. Gandhi. She maintained her refusal despite results from a stress test that showed abnormal left ventricular systolic function. Finally, on March 20, after a meeting with family members and Dr. Gandhi, the patient consented to the cath procedure. The procedure was scheduled for March 22. During the procedure, it was discovered that a major artery of the heart was 80 percent blocked. This condition is known as the “widow-maker,” because the prognosis for the patient is so poor. Dr. Gandhi determined that “the patient needed open heart surgery and . . . to be transferred immediately to a tertiary hospital.” (Tr. 2305-6). He described that action he took to obtain an immediate transfer as follows: I talked to the surgeon up at St. Joseph’s and I informed him I have had difficulties transferring patients to St. Joseph’s the same day. [I asked him to] do me a favor and transfer the patient out of Brandon Hospital as soon as possible by helicopter. The surgeon promised me that he would take care of that. (Tr. 2261). The assurance, however, failed. The patient was not transferred that day. That night, while still at Brandon, complications developed for the patient. The complications demanded that an intra-aortic balloon pump be inserted in order to increase the blood flow to the heart. After Dr. Gandhi’s partner inserted the pump, he, too, contacted the surgeon at St. Joseph’s to arrange an immediate transfer for open heart surgery. But the patient was not transferred until early the next morning. Dr. Gandhi’s frustration at the delay for this critically ill patient in need of immediate open heart surgery is evident from the following testimony: So the patient had approximately 18 hours of delay of getting to the hospital with bypass capabilities even though the surgeon knew that she had a widow-maker, he had promised me that he would make those transfer arrangements, even though St. Joseph’s Hospital knew that the patient needed to be transferred, even though I was promised that the patient would be at a tertiary hospital for bypass capabilities. (Tr. 2262). Rod Randall, M.D., is a cardiologist whose practice is primarily at St. Joseph’s. He had active privileges at Brandon until 1998 when he “switched to courtesy privileges,” (Tr. 1735) at Brandon. He reviewed the medical records of the first patient about whom Dr. Gandhi testified. A review of the patient’s medical records disclosed no adverse outcome due to the patient’s transfer. To the contrary, the patient was reasonably stable at the time of transfer. Nonetheless, it would have been in the patient’s best interest to have been transferred prior to the catheterization procedure at Brandon. As Dr. Randall explained, [W]e typically cath people that we feel are going to have a probability of coronary artery disease. That is, you don’t tend to cath someone that [for whom] you don’t expect to find disease . . . . If you are going to cath this patient, [who] is in a higher risk category being an elderly female with . . . diminished injection fraction . . . why put the patient through two procedures. I would have to do a diagnostic catheterization at one center and do some type of intervention at another center. So, I would opt to transfer that patient to a tertiary care center and do the diagnostic catheterization there. (Tr. 1764, 1765). Furthermore, regardless of what procedure had been performed, the significant left main blockage that existed prior to the patient’s presentation at Brandon E.R. meant that the likely outcome would be death. The second of the patients Dr. Gandhi transferred to St. Joseph’s was a 74-year-old woman. Dr. Gandhi performed “a heart catheterization at 5:00 on Friday.” (Tr. 2267). The cath revealed a 90 percent blockage of the major artery of the heart, another widow-maker. Again, Dr. Gandhi recommended bypass surgery and contacted a surgeon at St. Joseph’s. The transfer, however, was not immediate. “Finally, at approximately 11:00 the patient went to St. Joseph’s Hospital. That night she was operated on . . . ”. (Tr. 2267). If Brandon had had open heart surgery capability, “[t]hat would have increased her chances of survival.” No competent evidence was admitted that showed the outcome, however, and as Dr. Randall pointed out, the medical records of the patient do not reveal the outcome. The patient who was transferred to Tampa General (the third of Dr. Ghandhi's patients) had presented at Brandon’s ER on February 15, 2000. Fifty-six years old and a heavy smoker with a family history of heart disease, she complained of severe chest pain. She received thrombolysis and was stabilized. She had presented with a myocardial infarction but it was complicated by congestive heart failure. After waiting three days for the myocardial infarction to subside, Dr. Gandhi performed cardiac catheterization. The patient “was surviving on only one blood vessel in the heart, the other two vessels were 100 percent blocked. She arrested on the table.” (Tr. 2271). After Dr. Gandhi revived her, he made arrangements for her transfer by helicopter. The transfer was done by helicopter for two reasons: traffic problems and because she had an intra-aortic balloon pump and there are a limited number of ambulances with intra- aortic balloon pump maintenance capability. If Brandon had had the ability to conduct open heart surgery, the patient would have had a better likelihood of successful outcome: “the surgeon would have taken the patient straight to the operating room. That patient would not have had a second arrest as she did at Tampa General.” (Tr. 2273). Marc Bloom, M.D., is a cardiothoracic surgeon. He performs open-heart surgery at UCH, where he is the chief of cardiac surgery. He reviewed the records of this 54-year-old woman. The records reflect that, in fact, upon presentation at Brandon’s E.R., the patient’s heart failure was very serious: She had an echocardiogram done that . . . showed a 20 percent ejection fraction . . . I mean when you talk severe, this would be classified as a severe cardiac compromise with this 20 percent ejection fraction. (Tr. 2712). Once stabilized, the patient should have been transferred for cardiac catheterization to a hospital with open- heart surgery instead of having cardiac cath at Brandon. It is true that delay in the transfer once arrangements were made was a problem. The greater problem for the patient, however, was in her management at Brandon. It was very likely that open heart surgery would be required in her case. She should have been transferred prior to the catheterization as soon as became known the degree to which her heart was compromised, that is, once the results of the echocardiogram were known. Adam J. Cohen, M.D., is a cardiologist with Diagnostic Consultative Cardiology, a group located in Brandon that provides cardiology services in Hillsborough County. Dr. Cohen provided evidence of five patients who presented at Brandon and whose treatments were delayed because of the need for a transfer. The first of these patients was a 76-year old male who presented to Brandon’s ER on April 6, 1999. Dr. Cohen considered him to be suffering “a complicated myocardial infarction.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 43) Cardiac catheterization conducted by Dr. Cohen showed “severe multi-vessel coronary disease, cardiogenic shock, severely impaired [left ventricular] function for which an intra-aortic balloon pump was placed . . .”. (Id.) During the placement of the pump, the patient stopped breathing and lost pulse. He was intubated and stabilized. A helicopter transfer was requested. There was only one helicopter equipped to conduct the transfer. Unfortunately, “the same day . . . there was a mass casualty event within the City of Tampa when the Gannet Power Plant blew up . . .”. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 44). An appropriate helicopter could not be secured. Dr. Cohen did not learn of the unavailability of helicopter transport for an hour after the request was made. Eventually, the patient was transferred by ambulance to UCH. There, he received angioplasty and “stenting of the right coronary artery times two.” (Id., at p. 47.) After a slow recovery, he was discharged on April 19. In light of the patient’s complex cardiac condition, he received a good outcome. This patient is an example of another patient who should have been transferred sooner from Brandon since Brandon does not have open heart surgery capability. The second of Dr. Cohen’s patients presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 10:30 p.m. on June 14, 1999. He was 64 years old with no risk factors for coronary disease other than high blood pressure. He was evaluated and diagnosed with “a large and acute myocardial infarction” Two hours later, the therapy was considered a failure because there was no evidence that the area of the heart that was blocked had been reperfused. Dr. Cohen recommended transfer to UCH for a salvage angioplasty. The call for a helicopter was made at 12:58 a.m. (early the morning of June 15) and the helicopter arrived 40 minutes later. At UCH, the patient received angioplasty procedure and stenting of two coronary arteries. He suffered “[m]oderately impaired heart function, which is reflective of myocardial damage.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 58). If salvage angioplasty with open heart backup had been available at Brandon, the patient would have received it much more quickly and timely. Whether the damage done to the patient’s heart during the episode could have been avoided by prompt angioplasty at Brandon is something Dr. Cohen did not know. As he put it, “I will never know, nor will anyone else know.” (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 60). The patient later developed cardiogenic shock and repeated ventricular tachycardia, requiring numerous medical interventions. Because of the interventions and mechanical trauma, he required surgery for repair of his right femoral artery. The patient recently showed an injection fraction of 45 percent below the minimum for normal of 50 percent. The third patient was a 51-year-old male who had undergone bypass surgery 19 years earlier. After persistent recurrent anginal symptoms with shortness of breath and diaphoresis, he presented at Brandon’s E.R. at 1:00 p.m. complaining of heavy chest pain. Thrombolytic therapy was commenced. Dr. Cohen described what followed: [H]he had an episode of heart block, ventricular fibrillation, losing consciousness, for which he received ACLS efforts, being defibrillated, shocked, times three, numerous medications, to convert him to sinus rhythm. He was placed on IV anti- arrhythmics consisting of amiodarone. The repeat EKG showed a worsening of progression of his EKG changes one hour after the initiation of the TPA. Based on that information, his clinical scenario and his previous history, I advised him to be transferred to University Hospital for a salvage angioplasty. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 62). Transfer was requested at 1:55 p.m. The patient departed Brandon by helicopter at 2:20 p.m. The patient received the angioplasty at UCH. Asked how the patient would have benefited from angioplasty at Brandon without having to have been transferred, Dr. Cohen answered: In a more timely fashion, he would have received an angioplasty to the culprit lesion involved. There would have been much less occlusive time of that artery and thereby, by inference, there would have been greater salvage of myocardium that had been at risk. (Brandon Ex. 45, p. 65). The patient, having had bypass surgery in his early thirties, had a reduced life expectancy and impaired heart function before his presentation at Brandon in June of 1999. The time taken for the transfer of the patient to UCH was not inordinate. The transfer was accomplished with relative and expected dispatch. Nonetheless, the delay between realization at Brandon of the need for a salvage angioplasty and actual receipt of the procedure after a transfer to UCH increased the potential for lost myocardium. The lack of open heart services at Brandon resulted in reduced life expectancy for a patient whose life expectancy already had been diminished by the early onset of heart disease. The fourth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented to Brandon’s E.R. at 8:30, the morning of August 29, 1999. A fifty-four-year-old male, he had been having chest pain for a month and had ignored it. An EKG showed a complete heart block with atrial fibrillation and change consistent with acute myocardial infarction. Thrombolytic therapy was administered. He continued to have symptoms including increased episodes of ventricular arrhythmias. He required dopamine for blood pressure support due to his clinical instability and the lack of effectiveness of the thrombolytics. The patient refused a transfer and catheterization at first. Ultimately, he was convinced to undergo an angioplasty. The patient was transferred by helicopter to UCH. The patient was having a “giant ventricular infarct . . . a very difficult situation to take care of . . . and the majority of [such] patients succumb to [the] disease . . .”. (Tr. 2703). The cardiologist was unable to open the blockage via angioplasty. Dr. Bloom was called in but the patient refused surgical intervention. After interaction with his family the patient consented. Dr. Bloom conducted open heart surgery. The patient had a difficult post-operative course with arrythmias because “[h]e had so much dead heart in his right ventricle . . .”. (Id.) The patient received an excellent outcome in that he was seen in Dr. Bloom’s office with 40 percent injection fraction. Dr. Bloom “was just amazed to see him back in the office . . . and amazed that this man is alive.” (Tr. 2704). Most of the delay in receiving treatment was due to the patient’s reluctance to undergo angioplasty and then open heart surgery. The fifth patient of Dr. Cohen’s presented at Brandon’s E.R. on March 22, 2000. He was 44 years old with no prior cardiac history but with numerous risk factors. He had a sudden onset of chest discomfort. Lab values showed an elevation consistent with myocardial injury. He also had an abnormal EKG. Dr. Cohen performed a cardiac cath on March 23, 2000. The procedure showed a totally occluded left anterior descending artery, one of the three major arteries serving the heart. Had open heart capability been available at Brandon, he would have undergone angioplasty and stenting immediately. As it was, the patient had to be transferred to UCH. A transfer was requested at 10:25 that morning and the patient left Brandon’s cath lab at 11:53. Daniel D. Lorch, M.D., is a specialist in pulmonary medicine who was accepted as an expert in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine and critical care medicine, consistent with his practice in a “five-man pulmonary internal medicine critical care group.” (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 4). Dr. Lorch produced medical records for one patient that he testified about during his deposition. The patient had presented to Brandon’s E.R. with an MI. He was transferred to UCH by helicopter for care. Dr. Lorch supports Brandon’s application. As he put it during his deposition: [Brandon] is an extremely busy community hospital and we are in a very rapidly growing area. The hospital is quite busy and we have a large number of cardiac patients here and it is not infrequently that a situation comes up where there are acute cardiac events that need to be transferred out. (Brandon Ex. 42, p. 20). Transfers Following Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization Brandon transfers a high number cardiac patients for the provision of angioplasty or open heart surgery in addition to those transferred under emergency conditions. In 1996, Brandon performed 828 diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures. Of this number, 170 patients were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 170 patients for angioplasty. In 1997, Brandon performed 863 diagnostic catheterizations of which 180 were transferred for open heart surgery and 159 for angioplasty. During 1998, 165 patients were transferred for open heart surgery and 161 for angioplasty out of 816 diagnostic catheterization procedures. For the first nine months of 1999, Brandon performed 639 diagnostic catheterizations of which 102 were transferred to existing providers for open heart surgery and 112 for angioplasty. A significant number of patients are transferred from Brandon for open heart surgery services. These transfers are consistent with the norm in Florida. After all, open heart surgery is a tertiary service. Patients are routinely transferred from most Florida hospitals to tertiary hospitals for OHS and PCTA. The large majority of Florida hospitals do not have OHS programs; yet, these hospitals receive patients who need OHS or PTCA. Transfers, although the norm, are not without consequence for some patients who are candidates for OHS or PCTA. If Brandon had open heart and angioplasty capability, many of the 1220 patients determined to be in need of angioplasty or open heart surgery following a diagnostic catheterization procedure at Brandon could have received these procedures at Brandon, thereby avoiding the inevitable delay and stress occasioned by transfer. Moreover, diagnostic catheterizations and angioplasties are often performed sequentially. Therefore, Brandon patients determined to be in need of angioplasty following a diagnostic catheterization would have had access to immediate angioplasty during the same procedure thus reducing the likelihood of a less than optimal outcome as the result of an additional delay for transfer. Adverse Impact on Existing Providers Competition There is active competition and available patient choices now in Brandon's PSA. As described, there are many OHS programs currently accessible to and substantially serving Brandon's PSA. There is substantial competition now among OHS providers so as to provide choices to PSA residents. There are no financial benefits or cost savings accruing to the patient population if Brandon is approved. Brandon does not propose lower charges than the existing OHS providers. Balanced Budget Act The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 has had a profound negative financial impact on hospitals throughout the country. The Act resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of Medicare payments made to hospitals for services rendered to Medicare recipients. During the first five years of the Act's implementation, Florida hospitals will experience a $3.6 billion reduction in Medicare revenues. Lakeland will receive $17 million less, St.Joseph's will receive $44 million less, and Tampa General will receive $53 million less. The impact of the Act has placed most hospitals in vulnerable financial positions. It has seriously affected the bottom line of all hospitals. Large urban teaching hospitals, such as TGH, have felt the greatest negative impact, due to the Act's impact on disproportionate share reimbursement and graduate medical education payment. The Act's impact upon Petitioners render them materially more vulnerable to the loss of OHS/PTCA revenues to Brandon than they would have been in the absence of the Act. Adverse Impact on Tampa General Tampa General is the "safety net provider" for Hillsborough County. Tampa General is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider. In fiscal year 1999, the hospital provided $58 million in charity care, as that term is defined by AHCA. Tampa General plays a unique, essential role in Hillsborough County and throughout West Central Florida in terms of provision of health care. Its regional role is of particular importance with respect to Level I trauma services, provision of burn care, specialized Level III neonatal and perinatal intensive care services, and adult organ transplant services. These services are not available elsewhere in western or central Florida. In fiscal year 1999, Tampa General experienced a net loss of $12.6 million in providing the services referenced above. It is obligated under contract with the State of Florida to continue to provide those services. Tampa General is a statutory teaching hospital. In fiscal year 1999, it provided unfunded graduate medical education in the amount of $19 million. Since 1998, Tampa General has consistently experienced losses resulting from its operations, as follows: FY 1998-$29 million, FY 1999-$27 million; FY 2000 (5 months)-$10 million. The hospital’s financial condition is not the result of material mismanagement. Rather, its financial condition is a function of its substantial provision of charity and Medicaid services, the impact of the Act, reduced managed care revenues, and significant increases in expense. Tampa General’s essential role in the community and its distressed financial condition have not gone unnoticed. The Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce established in February of 2000 an Emergency Task Force to assess the hospital's role in the community, and the need for supplemental funding to enable it to maintain its financial viability. Tampa General requires supplemental funding on a continuing basis in order to begin to restore it to a position of financial stability, while continuing to provide essential community services, indigent care, and graduate medical education. It will require ongoing supplemental funding of $20- 25 million annually to avoid triggering the default provision under its bond covenants. As of the close of hearing, the 2000 session of the Florida Legislature had adjourned. The Legislature appropriated approximately $22.9 million for Tampa General. It is, of course, uncertain as to what funding, if any, the Legislature will appropriate to the hospital in future years, as the terms which constitute the appropriations must be revisited by the Legislature on an annual basis. Tampa General has prepared internal financial projections for its fiscal years 2000-2002. It projects annual operating losses, as follows: FY 2000-$20.1 million; FY 2001- $20.6 million; FY 2002-$31.9 million. While its projections anticipate certain "strategic initiatives" that will enhance its financial condition, including continued supplemental legislative funding, the success and/or availability of those initiatives are not "guaranteed" to be successful. If the Brandon program is approved, Tampa General will lose 93 OHS cases and 107 angioplasty cases during Brandon's second year of operation. That loss of cases will result in a $1.4 million annual reduction in TGH's net income, a material adverse impact given Tampa General’s financial condition. OHS services provide a positive contribution to Tampa General's financial operations. Those services constitute a core piece of Tampa General's business. The anticipated loss of income resulting from Brandon's program pose a threat to the hospital’s ability to provide essential community services. Adverse Impact on UCH UCH operated at a financial break-even in its fiscal year 1999. In the first five months of its fiscal year 2000, the hospital has experienced a small loss. This financial distress is primarily attributed to less Medicare reimbursement due to the Act and less reimbursement from managed care. UCH's reimbursement for OHS services provides a good example of the financial challenges facing hospitals. In 1999, UCH's net income per OHS case was reduced 33 percent from 1998. Also in 1999, UCH received OHS reimbursement of only 32 percent of its charges. UCH would be substantially and adversely impacted by approval of Brandon's proposal. As described, UCH currently is a substantial provider of OHS and angioplasty services to residents of Brandon's PSA. There are many cardiologists on staff at Brandon who also actively practice at UCH. UCH is very accessible from Brandon's PSA. UCH reasonably projects to lose the following volumes in the first three years of operation of the proposed program: a loss of 78-93 OHS procedures, a loss of 24-39 balloon angioplasties, and a loss of 97-115 stent angioplasties. Converting this volume loss to financial terms, UCH will suffer the following financial losses as a direct and immediate result of Brandon being approved: about $1.1 million in the first year, and about $1.2 million in the second year, and about $1.3 million in the third year. As stated, UCH is currently operating at about a financial break-even point. The impact of the Balanced Budget Act, reduced managed care reimbursement, and UCH's commitment to serve all patients regardless of ability to pay has a profound negative financial impact on UCH. A recurring loss of more than $1 million dollars per year due to Brandon's new program will cause substantial and adverse impact on UCH. Adverse Impact on St. Joseph’s If Brandon's application is approved, St. Joseph’s will lose 47 OHS cases and 105 PTCA cases during Brandon's second year. That loss of cases will result in a $732,000 annual reduction in SJH's net income. That loss represents a material impact to SJH. Between 1997 and 2000, St. Joseph’s has experienced a pattern of significant deterioration in its financial performance. Its net revenue per adjusted admission had been reduced by 12 percent, while its costs have increased significantly. St. Joseph's net income from operations has deteriorated as follows: FYE 6/30/97-$31 million; FYE 12/31/98- $24 million; FYE 12/31/99-$13.8 million. A net operating income of $13.8 million is not much money relative to St Joseph's size, the age of its physical plant, and its need for capital to maintain and improve its facilities in order to remain competitive. St. Joseph’s offers a number of health care services to the community for which it does not receive reimbursement. Unreimbursed services include providing hospital admissions and services to patients of a free clinic staffed by volunteer members of SJH's medical staff, free immunization programs to low-income children, and a parish nurse program, among others. St. Joseph’s evaluates such programs annually to determine whether it has the financial resources to continue to offer them. During the past two years, the hospital has been forced to eliminate two of its free community programs, due to its deteriorating financial condition. St. Joseph’s anticipates that it will have to eliminate additional unreimbursed community services if it experiences an annual reduction in net income of $730,000. Adverse Impact to LRMC The approval of Brandon will have an impact on Lakeland. Lakeland will suffer a financial loss of about $253,000 annually. This projection is based on calculated contribution margins of OHS and PTCA/stent procedures performed at the hospital. A loss of $253,000 per year is a material loss at Lakeland, particularly in light of its slim operating margin and the very substantial losses it has experienced and will continue to experience as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In addition to the projected loss of OHS and other procedures based upon Brandon's application, Lakeland may experience additional lost cases from areas such as Bartow and Mulberry from which it draws patients to its open heart/cardiology program. Lakeland will also suffer material adverse impacts to its OHS program due to the negative effect of Brandon's program on its ability to recruit and retain nurses and other highly skilled employees needed to staff its program. The approval of Brandon will also result in higher costs at existing providers such as Lakeland as they seek to compete for a limited pool of experienced people by responding to sign-on bonuses and by reliance on extensive temporary nursing agencies and pools. Nursing Staff/Recruitment The staffing patterns and salaries for Brandon's projected 40.1 full-time equivalent employees to staff its open heart surgery program are reasonable and appropriate. Filling the positions will not be without some difficulty. There is a shortage for skilled nursing and other personnel needed for OHS programs nationally, in Florida and in District 6. The shortage has been felt in Hillsborough County. For example, it has become increasingly difficult to fill vacancies that occur in critical nursing positions in the coronary intensive care unit and in telemetry units at Tampa General. Tampa General's expenses for nursing positions have "increased tremendously." (Tr. 2622). To keep its program going, the hospital has hired "travelers . . . short-term employment, registered nurses that come from different agencies, . . . with [the hospital] a minimum of 12 weeks." (Tr. 2622). In fact, all hospitals in the Tampa Bay area utilize pool staff and contract staff to fill vacancies that appear from time-to- time. Use of contract staff has not diminished quality of care at the hospitals, although "they would not be assigned to the sickest patients." (Tr. 2176). Another technique for dealing with the shortage is to have existing full-time staff work overtime at overtime pay rates. St. Joseph's and Lakeland have done so. As a result, they have substantially exceeded their budgeted salary expenses in recent months. It will be difficult for Brandon to hire surgical RNs, other open heart surgery personnel and critical care nurses necessary to staff its OHS program. The difficulty, however, is not insurmountable. To meet the difficulty, Brandon will move members of its present staff with cardiac and open heart experience into its open heart program. It will also train some existing personnel in conjunction with the staff and personnel at Bayonet Point. In addition to drawing on the existing pool of nurses, Brandon can utilize HCA's internal nationwide staffing data base to transfer staff from other HCA facilities to staff Brandon's open heart program. Approximately 18 percent of the nurses hired at Brandon already come from other HCA facilities. The nursing shortage has been in existence for about a decade. During this time, other open heart programs have come on line and have been able to staff the programs adequately. Lakeland, in District 6, has demonstrated its ability to recruit and train open heart surgery personnel. Brandon, itself, has been successful, despite the on- going shortage, in appropriately staffing its recent additions of tertiary level NICU beds, an expanded Emergency Room, labor and delivery and recovery suites, and new high-risk, ante-partum observation unit. Brandon has begun to offer sign-on bonuses to compete for experienced nurses. Several employees who staff the Lakeland, UCH and Tampa General programs live in Brandon. These bonuses are temptations for them to leave the programs for Brandon. Other highly skilled, experienced individuals who already work at existing programs may be lost to Brandon's program as well simply as the natural result of the addition of a new program. In the end, Brandon will be able to staff its program, but it will make it more difficult for all of the programs in Hillsborough County and for Lakeland to meet their staffing needs as well as producing a financial impact on existing providers. Financial Feasibility Short-Term Brandon needs $4.2 million to fund implementation of the program. Its parent corporation, HCA will provide financing of up to $4.5 million for implementation. The $4.2 million in start-up costs projected by Brandon does not include the cost of a second cath lab or the costs to upgrade the equipment in the existing cath lab. Itemization of the funds necessary for improvement of the existing cath lab and the addition of the second cath lab were not included in Brandon's pro formas. It is the Agency's position that addition of a cath lab (and by inference, upgrade to an existing lab) requires only a letter of exemption as projects separate from an open heart surgery program even when proposed in support of the program. (See UCH No. 7, p. 83). The position is not inconsistent with cardiac catheterization programs as subject to requirements in law separate from those to which an open heart surgery program is subject. Brandon, through HCA, has the ability to fund the start-up costs of the project. It is financially feasible in the short-term. Long-Term Open heart surgery programs (inclusive of angioplasty and stent procedures, as well as other open heart surgery procedures) generally are very profitable. They are among the most profitable of programs conducted by hospitals. Brandon's projected charges for open heart, angioplasty, and stent procedures are based on the average charges to patients residing in Brandon's PSA inflated at 2 percent per year. The inflation rate is consistent with HCFA's August 1, 2000, Rule implementing a 2.3 percent Medicare reimbursement increase. Brandon's projected payor mix is reasonably based on the existing open heart, angioplasty, and stent patients within its PSA. Brandon also estimated conservatively that it would collect only 45 to 50 percent of its charges from third-party payors. To determine expenses, Brandon utilized Bayonet Point's accounting system. It provided a level of detail that could not be obtained otherwise. "For patients within Brandon's primary service area, . . . that information is not provided by existing providers in the area that's available for any public consumption." (Tr. 1002). While perhaps the most detailed data available, Bayonet Point data was far from an ideal model for Brandon. Bayonet Point performs about 1,500 OHS cases per year. It achieves economies of scale that will not be achievable at Brandon in the foreseeable future. There is a relationship between volume and cost efficiency. The higher the volume, the greater the cost efficiency. Brandon's volume is projected to be much lower than Bayonet Point's. To make up for the imperfection of use of Bayonet Point as an "expenses" proxy, Brandon's financial expert in opining that the project was feasible in the long-term, considered two factors with regard to expenses. First, it included its projected $1.8 million in salary expenses as a separate line item over and above the salary expenses contained in the Bayonet Point data. (This amounted to a "double" counting of salary expenses.) Second, it recognized HCA's ability to obtain competitive pricing with respect to equipment and services for its affiliated hospitals, Brandon being one of them. Brandon projected utilization of 249 and 279 cases in its second and third year of operations. These projections are reasonable. (See the testimony of Mr. Balsano on rebuttal and Brandon Ex. 74). Comparison of Agency Action in CONs 9169 and 9239 Brandon's application in this case, CON 9239, was filed within a six-month period of the filing of an earlier application, CON 9169. The Agency found the two applications to be similar. Indeed, the facts and circumstances at issue in the two applications other than the updating of the financial and volume numbers are similar. So is the argument made in favor of the applications. Yet, the first application was denied by the Agency while the second received preliminary approval. The difference in the Agency's action taken on the later application (the one with which this case is concerned), i.e., approval, versus the action taken on the earlier, denial, was explained by Scott Hopes, the Chief of the Bureau of Certificate of Need at the time the later application was considered: The [later] Brandon application . . ., which is what we're addressing here today, included more substantial information from providers, both cardiologists, internists, family practitioners and surgeons with specific case examples by patient age [and] other demographics, the diagnoses, outcomes, how delays impacted outcomes, what permanent impact those adverse outcomes left the patient in, where earlier . . . there weren't as many specifics. (Tr. 1536, 1537). A comparison of the application in CON 9169 and the record in this case bears out Mr. Hopes' assessment that there is a significant difference between the two applications. Comparison of the Agency Action with the District 9 Application During the same batching cycle in which CON 9239 was considered, five open heart surgery applications were considered from health care providers in District 9. Unlike Brandon's application, these were all denied. In the District 9 SAAR, the Agency found that transfers are an inherent part of OHS as a tertiary service. The Agency concluded that, "[O]pen heart surgery is a tertiary service and patients are routinely transferred between hospitals for this procedure." (UCH Ex. 7, pp. 51-54). In particular, the Agency recognized Boca Raton's claim that it had provided "extensive discussion of the quality implications of attempting to deal with cardiac emergencies through transfer to other facilities." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 52). Unlike the specific information referred to by Mr. Hopes in his testimony quoted, above, however, the foundation for Boca Raton's argument is a 1999 study published in the periodical Circulation, entitled "Relationship Between Delay in Performing Direct Coronary Angioplasty and Early Clinical Outcomes." (UCH Ex. 7, p. 21). This publication was cited by the Agency in its SAAR on the application in this case. Nonetheless, a fundamental difference remains between this case and the District 9 applications, including Boca Raton's. The application in this case is distinguished by the specific information to which Mr. Hopes alluded in his testimony, quoted above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the application of Galencare, Inc., d/b/a Brandon Regional Hospital for open heart surgery, CON 9239. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Stephen A. Ecenia, Esquire R. David Prescott, Esquire Thomas W. Konrad, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 North Monroe Street, Suite 420 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 James C. Hauser, Esquire Metz, Hauser & Husband, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 505 Post Office Box 10909 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 John H. Parker, Jr., Esquire Jonathan L. Rue, Esquire Sarah E. Evans, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs 1500 Marquis Two Tower 285 Peachtree Center Avenue, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Karen A. Putnal, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP The Perkins House, Suite 200 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether there is need for a new Pediatric Heart Transplant and/or Pediatric Heart and Lung Transplant program in Organ Transplant Service Area (OTSA) 3; and, if so, whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10471 (heart) and/or 10472 (heart and lung), filed by The Nemours Foundation, d/b/a Nemours Children’s Hospital (Nemours or NCH), to establish a Pediatric Heart Transplant and/or Pediatric Heart and Lung Transplant program, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for award of a CON.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Applicant, Nemours Nemours Children’s Hospital is a licensed Class II specialty children’s hospital located in Orange County, Health Planning District 7, Subdistrict 7-2, OTSA 3, which is owned and operated by The Nemours Foundation. Nemours is licensed for 100 beds, including 73 acute care, nine comprehensive medical rehabilitation, two Level II neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and 16 Level III NICU beds, and is a licensed provider of pediatric inpatient cardiac catheterization and pediatric open-heart surgery. As the primary beneficiary of the Alfred I. duPont Testamentary Trust established in the will of Alfred duPont, the Foundation was incorporated in Florida in 1936. The Foundation set out to provide children and families medical care and services, its mission being “[t]o provide leadership, institutions, and services to restore and improve the health of children through care and programs not readily available, with one high standard of quality and distinction regardless of the recipient’s financial status.” Foundation assets reached $5.5 billion, by the end of 2015. The Foundation has funded $1.5 billion of care to Florida’s pediatric population through subspecialty pediatric services, research, education, and advocacy. Nemours has established a pediatric care presence throughout the State of Florida. Nemours operates over 40 outpatient clinics throughout Florida that offer primary care, specialty care, urgent care, and cardiac care services to pediatric patients in central Florida, Jacksonville, and the panhandle region. Nemours also provides hospital care to pediatric inpatients at Nemours Children’s Hospital in Orlando, as well as through affiliations with Wolfson’s Children’s Hospital in Jacksonville, West Florida Hospital in Pensacola, and numerous hospital partners in central Florida. The resources Nemours offers in the greater Orlando area are especially significant with 17 Primary Care Clinics, five Urgent Care Clinics, 10 Specialty Care Clinics, nine Nemours Hospital partners, and, of course, NCH itself. These clinics are located throughout OTSA 3 where Nemours determined access to pediatric care was lacking, including Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona Beach, Titusville, Kissimmee, Lake Mary, and Sanford, as well as neighboring Lakeland. The clinics are fully staffed with hundreds of Nemours-employed physicians who live in the clinic communities. Through these satellite locations, as well as the Nemours CareConnect telemedicine platform, Nemours is able to bring access to its world-class subspecialists located at NCH to children throughout the State of Florida who otherwise would not have access to such care. Nemours was established to provide state of the art medical care to children through its integrated model. Nemours’ development has been and continues to be driven by its mission and objective to be a top-tier, world-class pediatric healthcare system. NCH is the first completely new “green field” children’s hospital in the United States in over 40 years, allowing Nemours to integrate cutting-edge technology and a patient-centered approach throughout. Nemours has created a unique integrated model of care that addresses the needs of the child across the whole continuum, connecting policy and prevention, to the highest levels of specialized care for the most complex pediatric patients. From its inception, Nemours envisioned the development of a comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program as proposed by the CON applications at issue in this proceeding. NCH is located in the Lake Nona area, just east of downtown Orlando in a development known as Medical City. Medical City is comprised of a new VA Hospital, the University of Central Florida (UCF) College of Medicine and School of Biomedical Sciences, the University of Florida (UF) Research and Academic Center, the Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute, and a CON-approved hospital, which is a joint venture between UCF and AHCA, which will serve as UCF’s teaching hospital. Medical City is intended to bring together life scientists and research that uses extraordinarily advanced technology. Co- location in an integrated environment allows providers and innovators of healthcare, “the brightest minds,” so to speak, to interact and to share ideas to advance healthcare and wellness efforts. Agency for Health Care Administration AHCA is the state health-planning agency that is charged with administration of the CON program as set forth in sections 408.031-408.0455, Florida Statutes. Context of the Nemours Applications Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044, AHCA requires applicants to obtain separate CONs for the establishment of each adult or pediatric organ transplantation program, including: heart, kidney, liver, bone marrow, lung, lung and heart, pancreas and islet cells, and intestine transplantations. “Transplantation” is “the surgical grafting or implanting in its entirety or in part one or more tissues or organs taken from another person.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-3.065. Heart transplantation, lung transplantation, and heart/lung transplantation are all defined by rule 59C-1.002(41) as “tertiary health services,” meaning “a health service which, due to its high level of intensity, complexity, specialized or limited applicability, and cost, should be limited to, and concentrated in, a limited number of hospitals to ensure the quality, availability, and cost effectiveness of such service.” AHCA rules define a “pediatric patient” as “a patient under the age of 15 years.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(c). AHCA rules divide Florida into four OTSAs, corresponding generally with the northern, western central, eastern central, and southern regions of the state. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(2)(f). The programs at issue in this proceeding will be located in OTSA 3, which is comprised of Brevard, Indian River, Lake, Martin, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia Counties. Currently, there are no providers of PHT in OTSA 3, and there are no approved PHLT programs statewide. The incidence of PHT in Florida, as compared to other types of solid organ transplants, is relatively small. The chart below sets forth the number of pediatric (ages 0-14) heart transplant discharges by year for the four existing Florida PHT programs during Calendar Years (CY) 2013 through 2016, and the 12-month period ending June 2017: HOSPITAL HEART TRANSPLANT CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 12 MONTHS ENDING JUNE 2017 All Children’s Hospital 7 14 9 8 7 UF Health Shands Hospital 6 8 15 15 9 Memorial Regional Hospital 5 5 5 7 4 Jackson Health System 2 2 1 4 1 Total 20 29 30 34 21 The above historic data demonstrates that the incidence of PHT statewide is relatively rare, and does fluctuate from program to program and from year to year. As can be seen, the most recent available 12-month data reflects that only 21 PHTs were performed during that time, for an average program volume of only 5.25 cases. Florida has more existing and approved PHT programs than every other state in the country except California, which has more than double the pediatric population of Florida. And like Florida, two of the California programs are extremely low- volume programs. Additionally, evidence regarding the number of PHLT patients demonstrated just how rare this procedure is. From 2013 to 2016, there was an annual average of only four PHLTs nationally, with only one actual transplant on a Floridian. Nemours’ health planner stated that although Nemours projected in its application that it would perform one heart/lung procedure each year, it is a “very low-volume service,” and Nemours in actuality expects that there will be years with zero volume of PHLT. The CON Applications Nemours filed its applications for heart transplantation, heart/lung transplantation, and lung transplantation in the second Other Beds and Programs Batching Cycle of 2016. Nemours is proposing the development of a comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program, which will be the only such program in Florida. This will be achieved by combining three types of transplant services (heart, lung, and heart/lung) in one comprehensive cardiothoracic transplant program. Each application was conditioned on the development of all three transplantation programs. Nemours is located in OTSA 3, where there is currently no PHT provider, PLT provider, or PHLT provider. There are, however, three providers of pediatric open-heart surgery and pediatric cardiac catheterization, and a large, growing pediatric population. Unlike any other facility in Florida, the Nemours Cardiac Center (Cardiac Center) is uniquely organized to treat all forms of congenital heart disease. The Cardiac Center employs a “programmatic approach” to offer the most beneficial environment and the finest care available for pediatric patients. The Cardiac Center, physically located at NCH, throughout Florida, is organized as a single Department of Cardiovascular Services to house Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Anesthesia, Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and Cardiology. Cardiac Center physicians throughout Florida are organized as a single entity with the goal of providing the highest quality, patient-centered care to all patients without the usual barriers created by the departmental “silos.” The entire Cardiac Center clinical team, including nurses and physicians, is dedicated solely to the special challenges of congenital heart abnormalities and makes the care of children with heart disease the life’s work of team members. The fully integrated organizational structure permits the team to take shared responsibility for all aspects of the delivery of quality care to these pediatric patients from admission to discharge. The Cardiac Center holds weekly patient consensus conferences, where all providers, including physicians, nurses, and the patients’ caregivers, participate in case reviews of all inpatients and those patients scheduled for surgery or catheterization. The Cardiac Center is “state of the art” with a designated cardiovascular operating room, a designated cardiovascular lab that includes an electrophysiology lab, and a dedicated comprehensive care unit. In addition, The Foundation has furthered the commitment to the Cardiac Center by funding an additional $35 million expansion to the sixth floor of NCH, adding an additional 31 inpatient beds, an additional operating room, and a comprehensive cardiovascular intensive care unit. Dr. Peter D. Wearden joined Nemours in 2015 as the chief of cardiac surgery, chair of the Department of Cardiovascular Services, and director of the Cardiac Center at Nemours. Dr. Wearden will serve as director of the Comprehensive Cardiothoracic Transplant Program at Nemours and will be instrumental in the development and implementation of the program. Dr. Wearden was recruited from the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP), where he served as the surgical director of Heart, Lung, and Heart/Lung Transplantation. He was also the director of the Mechanical Cardiopulmonary Support and Artificial Heart Program. CHP rose to a US News and World Report top 10 program during Dr. Wearden’s tenure. CHP is at the forefront of organ transplantation and is where the first pediatric heart/lung transplantation was performed. Dr. Wearden is a trained cardiothoracic surgeon who completed fellowships in both cardiothoracic surgery (University of Pittsburgh) and Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery (Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada). He is certified by the American Board of Thoracic Surgery and holds additional qualifications in Congenital Heart Surgery from that organization. In his tenure as a board-certified pediatric transplant specialist, he has participated in over 200 pediatric cardiothoracic transplantations, of which he was the lead surgeon in over 70. In addition, he has procured over $20 million in National Institutes of Health research funding since 2004 specific to the development of artificial hearts and lungs for children and their implementation as a live-saving bridge to transplantation. Dr. Wearden was a member of the clinical team that presented to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel for approval of the Berlin Heart, the only FDA-approved pediatric heart ventricular assist device (VAD)1/ currently available, and he proctored the first pediatric artificial heart implantation in Japan in 2012. A VAD is referred to as “bridge to transplant” in pediatric patients because the device enables a patient on a waiting list for a donated heart to survive but is a device on which a child could not live out his or her life. Both utilization of VADs and heart transplantation procedures are in the “portfolio of surgical interventions” that can save the life of a child with heart failure. Dr. Wearden is an international leader in the research and development of VADs. Victor Morell, an eminent cardiac surgeon and chief of Pediatric Cardiac Surgery at CHP, testified that Dr. Wearden’s presence in Orlando alone and the work that he will be able to do with VADs and a PHT program will likely save lives. Many of the physicians that comprise the Nemours Cardiac Center transplant team not only have significant transplant experience, but also have experience performing transplants together. These physicians came with Dr. Wearden from CHP, were trained by Dr. Wearden, or otherwise worked with Dr. Wearden at some point in their careers. The physicians recruited to the Nemours transplantation team were trained at or hail from among the most prestigious programs in the country. For example, Dr. Kimberly Baker, a cardiac intensivist, was trained by Dr. Wearden in the CHP ICU. Dr. Constantinos Chrysostomou, Nemours’ director of cardiac intensive care, worked with Dr. Wearden at CHP, and has experience starting the pediatric ICU in Los Angeles at Cedar Sinai Hospital. Dr. Steven Lichtenstein, chief of cardiac anesthesia, held the same position at CHP for 12 years before he was recruited to Nemours. Dr. Karen Bender, a cardiac anesthesiologist, was recruited by Dr. Wearden from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia – one of the leading programs in the country. Dr. Michael Bingler, a cardiac interventionalist, was at Mercy Children’s Hospital in Kansas City for eight years. Dr. Adam Lowry of the Nemours cardiac intensive care center previously trained at both Texas Children’s Hospital (the number one program in the country) and Stanford. The 11 physicians that comprise the Cardiac Center’s Cardiothoracic Physician Team have collectively participated in 1,146 cardiothoracic transplantations. These physicians came to Nemours to care for the most acute, critically ill patients, including those requiring PHT. In addition to the physician team, the expertise and skill of the non-physician staff in the catheterization lab, the operating room, and the cardiac ICU are crucial to a successful program. Dr. Dawn Tucker is the administrative director of NCH’s Cardiac Center and heads the nursing staff for NCH’s Cardiac Center, which includes 23 registered nurses with transplant experience. Dr. Tucker holds a doctorate of Nursing Practice and was formerly the director of the Heart Center at Mercy Children’s Hospital in Kansas City, where she oversaw the initiation of a PHT program. The average years of experience for total nursing care in cardiac units across the nation is two years. The average years of experience in the Nemours Cardiac Center is eight years. Medical literature shows the greater the years of nursing staff experience, the lower the mortality and morbidity rates. The nursing staff at Nemours, moreover, has extensive experience in dealing not only with pediatric cardiac patients, but with pediatric heart transplants as well. The Cardiac Center’s cardiothoracic nursing staff has over 220 years of collective cardiothoracic transplant experience. Nemours operates a “simulation center” that allows the Cardiac Center to simulate any type of cardiac procedure on a model patient before performing that procedure on an actual patient. The model patient’s “heart” is produced using a three- dimensional printer that creates a replica of the heart based on MRI’s or other medical digital imaging equipment. These replica hearts are printed on-site, using the only FDA-approved software for such use, and are ready for use in the simulation center within a day after medical imaging. Nemours Cardiac Center currently performs what the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has coined “STAT 5” cardiac procedures. STAT 5 cardiac procedures are the most complex; STAT 1 procedures are the least complex. A PHT is a STAT 4 procedure. Since Dr. Wearden’s arrival at the Nemours Cardiac Center, there have been no patient mortalities. The uncontroverted evidence established that Nemours has assembled a high-quality, experienced, and unquestionably capable team of physicians and advanced practitioners for its cardiothoracic transplantation programs and is capable of performing the services proposed in its applications at a high level. UF Health Shands While not a party to this proceeding,2/ UF Health Shands’ (Shands) presence at the final hearing was pervasive. AHCA called numerous witnesses affiliated with Shands in its case-in-chief. The scope of the testimony presented by Shands- affiliated witnesses was circumscribed by Order dated December 13, 2017 (ruling on NCH’s motion in limine) that: At hearing, the Agency may present evidence that the needs of patients within OTSA 3 are being adequately served by providers located outside of OTSA 3, but may not present evidence regarding adverse impact on providers located outside of OTSA 3. Baycare of Se. Pasco, Inc. v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., Case No. 07-3482CON (Fla. DOAH Oct. 28, 2008; Fla. AHCA Jan. 7, 2009). UF Health Shands Hospital is located in Gainesville, Florida. UF Health Shands Children’s Hospital is an embedded hospital within a larger hospital complex. Shands Children’s Hospital has 200 beds and is held out to the public as a children’s hospital. The children’s hospital has 72 Level II and III NICU beds. Unlike Nemours, Shands offers obstetrical services such that babies are delivered at Shands. It also has a dedicated pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) as well as a dedicated pediatric cardiac intensive care unit. The Shands Children’s Hospital has its own separate emergency room and occupies four floors of the building in which it is located. It is separated from the adult services. Shands Children’s Hospital is nationally recognized by U.S. News & World Report as one of the nation’s best children’s hospitals. The children’s hospital has its own leadership, including Dr. Shelley Collins, an associate professor of pediatrics and the associate chief medical officer. As a comprehensive teaching and research institution, Shands Children’s Hospital has virtually every pediatric subspecialty that exists and is also a pediatric trauma center. The children’s hospital typically has 45 to 50 physician residents and 25 to 30 fellows along with medical students. Over $139 million has been awarded to Shands for research activities. As a teaching hospital, Shands is accustomed to caring for the needs of patients and families that come from other parts of the state or beyond. Jean Osbrach, a social work manager at Shands, testified for AHCA. Ms. Osbrach oversees the transplant social workers that provide services to the families with patients at Shands Children’s Hospital. Ms. Osbrach described how the transplant social workers interact with the families facing transplant from the outset of their connection with Shands. They help the families adjust to the child’s illness and deal with the crisis; they provide concrete services; and these social workers help the families by serving as navigators through the system. These social workers are part of the multidisciplinary team of care, and they stay involved with these families for years. Shands is adept at helping families with the issues associated with getting care away from their home cities. Shands has apartments specifically available in close proximity to the children’s hospital and relationships with organizations that can help families that need some financial support for items such as lodging, transportation, and gas. Ms. Osbrach’s ability to empathize with these families is further enhanced because her own daughter was seriously ill when she was younger. Ms. Osbrach testified that, while she was living in Gainesville, she searched out the best options for her child and decided that it was actually in Orlando. Despite the travel distance, she did not hesitate to make those trips in order to get the care her child needed at that time. The Shands Children’s Hospital is affiliated with the Children’s Hospital Association, the Children’s Miracle Network, the March of Dimes, and the Ronald McDonald House Charities. Shands operates ShandsCair, a comprehensive emergency transport system. ShandsCair operates nine ground ambulances of different sizes, five helicopters, and one fixed-wing jet aircraft. ShandsCair does over 7,000 transports a year, including a range of NICU and other pediatric transports. ShandsCair is one of the few services in the country that owns an EC-155 helicopter, which is the largest helicopter used as an air ambulance. This makes it easier to transport patients that require a lot of equipment, including those on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Patients on ECMO can be safely transported by ground and by air by ShandsCair. Shandscair serves as a first responder and also provides facility-to- facility transport. It has been a leader in innovation. The congenital heart program at Shands includes two pediatric heart surgeons, as well as pediatric cardiologists Dr. Jay Fricker and Dr. Bill Pietra, both of whom testified for AHCA. Dr. Fricker did much of his early work and training at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and came to the University of Florida in 1995. He is a professor and chief of the Division of Cardiology in the Department of Pediatrics at Shands. He is also the Gerold L. Schiebler Eminent Scholar Chair in Pediatric Cardiology at UF. He has been involved in the care of pediatric heart transplant patients his entire career. Dr. Bill Pietra received his medical training in Cincinnati and did his early work at several children’s hospitals in Colorado. He came to the University of Florida and Shands in July 2014 and is now the medical director, UF Health Congenital Heart Center. Shands performed its first pediatric heart transplant in 1986. Shands treats the full range of patients with heart disease and performs heart transplants on patients, from infants through adults, with complex congenital heart disease. Shands provides transplants to pediatric patients with both congenital heart defects and acquired heart disease (cardiomyopathy). Shands will accept the most difficult cases, including those that other institutions will not take. Data presented by AHCA dating back to the beginning of 2014 demonstrate that Shands has successfully transplanted numerous patients that were less than six months old at the time of transplantation. This data also demonstrates that Shands serves all of central and north Florida, as well as patients that choose to come to Shands from other states. PHT patients now survive much longer than in the past, and in many cases, well into adulthood. Because Shands cares for both adult and pediatric patients, it has the ability to continue to care for PHT patients as they transition from childhood to adulthood. Managed care companies are now a significant driver of where patients go for transplantation services. Many managed- care companies identify “centers of excellence” as their preferred providers for services such as PHT. Shands is recognized by the three major managed-care companies that identify transplant programs as a center of excellence for PHT services. AHCA’s Preliminary Decision Following AHCA’s review of Nemours’s applications, as well as consideration of comments made at the public hearing held on January 10, 2017, and written statements in support of and in opposition to the proposals, AHCA determined to preliminarily deny the PHT and PHLT applications, and to approve the PLT application. AHCA’s decision was memorialized in three separate SAARs, all dated February 17, 2017. Marisol Fitch, supervisor of AHCA’s CON and commercial-managed care unit, testified for AHCA. Ms. Fitch testified that AHCA does not publish a numeric need for transplant programs, as it does for other categories of services and facilities. Rather, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate need for the program based on whatever methodology they choose to present to AHCA. In addition to the applicant’s need methodology, AHCA also looks at availability and accessibility of service in the area to determine whether there is an access problem. Finally, an applicant may attempt to demonstrate that “not normal” circumstances exist in its proposed service area sufficient to justify approval. Statutory Review Criteria Section 408.035(1) establishes the statutory review criteria applicable to CON Applications 10471 and 10472. The parties have stipulated that each CON application satisfies the criteria found in section 408.035(1), (d), (f), and (h), Florida Statutes. The only criteria at issue essentially relate to need and access. However, the Agency maintains that section 408.035(1)(c) is in dispute to the extent that center transplant volume as a result of Nemours’ approval would lead to or correlate with negative patient outcomes. AHCA believes that there is no need for the PHT or PHLT programs that Nemours seeks to develop because the needs of the children in the Nemours service area are being met by other providers in the state, principally Shands and Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital. Section 408.035(1)(a) and (b): The need for the health care facilities and health services being proposed; and the availability, quality of care, accessibility, and extent of utilization of existing health care facilities and health services in the district of the applicant. Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.044(6)(b).3/ The criteria for the evaluation of CON applications, including applications for organ transplantation programs, are set forth at section 408.035 and rule 59C-1.044. However, neither the applicable statutes nor rules have a numeric need methodology that predicts future need for PHT or PHLT programs. Thus, it is up to the applicant to demonstrate need in accordance with rule 59C-1.044. There are four OTSAs in Florida, numbered OTSA 1 through OTSA 4. NCH is located in OSTA 3, which includes the following counties: Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Brevard, Indian River, Okeechobee, St. Lucie, Martin, Lake, and Volusia. (See § 408.032(5), Fla. Stat; Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 01.044(2)(f)3.) OTSA 3 also generally corresponds with the pediatric cardiac catheterization and open-heart surgery service areas defined by AHCA rule. (See Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C- 1.032(2)(g) and 59C-1.033(2)(h)). Currently, there is no provider of PHT in OTSA 3, but there are three providers of pediatric cardiac catheterization and pediatric open-heart surgery: Orlando Health Arnold Palmer Hospital for Children; Florida Hospital for Children; and Nemours. There are no licensed providers of PHLT anywhere in the State of Florida. There are four existing providers and one approved provider of PHT services in Florida: UF Shands in OTSA 1; Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in OTSA 2; Jackson Memorial Hospital in OSTA 4; and Memorial Regional Hospital, d/b/a Joe DiMaggio’s Hospital in OTSA 4; and a third approved program in OTSA 4, Nicklaus Children’s Hospital, which received final approval from AHCA in August 2017. As noted above, there is no fixed-need pool published for PHT, PHLT, or PLT programs. Alternatively, AHCA follows rule 59C-1.008(2)(e)2., which requires consideration of population demographics and dynamics; availability, utilization and quality of like services in the district, subdistrict, or both; medical treatment trends; and market conditions. To quantify the need for a new PHT program in District 7, OTSA 3, Nemours created and presented a methodology that started with the statewide use rate in its projected first year. Then for the second year, Nemours aggressively increased the use rate to the highest rate in any of the other transplant service areas in the state. Then, in an even more aggressive (and unreasonable) assumption, Nemours projected that it would essentially capture all of the cases in OTSA 3 by the second year of the program. In its application, the assumptions resulted in a projection that Nemours would do four transplants in the first year of operation and eight in the second. These projections fall short of the rule requirement that the applicant project a minimum of 12 transplants per year by the second year of operation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.044(6)(b)2. At hearing, Nemours updated (increased) those first and second year projections to 7 and 13 cases, respectively. However, these updated projections included one child, aged 15 to 17, in year one, and two in year two. There are several reasons these projections lack credibility. First, as noted, Nemours assumed a near- 100 percent market share based on the highest use rate in the state by just year two. Second, when Nemours prepared its update, it used the most recent calendar year data. However, this was not the most current data. Calendar Year 2016 reflected 34 cases statewide, but that number had dropped to 21 for the most recent 12-month period available at the time of the hearing. Use of this most recent 12-month data would have significantly decreased the Nemours PHT volume projections. In addition, the projection of 13 cases by year two would place Nemours at a higher PHT case volume than three of the four established programs in the state, and would be at a level that is nearly equivalent to the much more established Shands program. This is not credible, especially considering that Nemours also admitted at hearing that only two OTSA 3 residents received pediatric heart transplants in 2016. The existence of unmet need cannot be based solely on the absence of an existing service in the proposed service area. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.008(2)(e)3. While Nemours’ own health planner agreed that the absence of a PHT program in OTSA 3 is not itself a basis for finding need, Nemours nevertheless argues that this rule is inapplicable in this proceeding because the title to this subsection of the rule is “Comparative Review” and a portion of this subsection addresses competing applications in the same cycle. As detailed further in the Conclusions of Law section herein, this interpretation is unconvincing and rejected. AHCA interprets this rule provision to apply to those batched applications submitted without the submission of a competing application in the same batching cycle, as with Nemours in this proceeding. Nemours initiated its cardiac catheterization and cardiac surgery program in June/July 2016. In its PHT application, Nemours projected that it would meet or exceed the rule minimum required volumes of 200 cardiac catheterizations and 125 open-heart surgery cases by the end of 2017. Actual volumes achieved by Nemours in CY 2017 were 97 open-heart cases and 196 cardiac catheterizations. The incidence of PHLT is extremely low. During the four calendar years, 2013 through 2016, there were only 16 PHLT transplants performed nationwide. Only one Florida resident received a PHLT during that four-year period, and that was performed in Massachusetts. Also during that four-year period, only three Florida residents were registered for PHLT. There is no evidence in this record as to why two of the three registered Florida residents did not obtain a PHLT. Based on the national use rate for PHLTs from CY 2013 through CY 2016, Nemours projects that it will perform an average of one PHLT per year. Nemours acknowledges that due to the extremely low incidence of PHLTs, there may be some years that no PHLTs are performed at Nemours. Geographic Access There is no evidence of record that families living in central Florida are currently being forced to travel unreasonable distances to obtain PHT services. Indeed, there are five existing or approved programs within the state, with at least two located very reasonably proximate to OTSA 3. According to the analysis of travel distances for PHT patients living in OTSA 3 contained in the Nemours application (Exhibit 15), only some residents located in Brevard and Indian River Counties are not within 120 miles of an existing PHT program. There was agreement that patients that need a PHT are approaching the end-stage of cardiac function, and in the absence of a PHT will very likely die. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that the parents of a child living in central Florida and needing a PHT will travel to St. Petersburg or Gainesville for transplant services rather than let their child die because the travel distance is too far. To the contrary, the evidence in this record from witnesses on both sides, as well as common sense, is that families will go as far as necessary to save their child. The notion that there is some pent-up demand for PHT services among central Florida residents (especially when there is no evidence of a single OTSA 3 patient being turned down or unable to access a PHT) is without support in this record. The parents of four pediatric patients testified at the final hearing. Two testified for Nemours. The other two testified for AHCA and were parents of children that received PHTs at Shands. One of the Nemours witnesses was the parent of a child that has not received a transplant. The other received transplant services at Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg. The parents of the two Shands patients were representative of the two broad categories of PHT patients. One was a patient with a congenital heart defect that lives in Cocoa Beach (Brevard County). The patient likely had the heart defect since birth, but it was not diagnosed until she was six years old. That patient was asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis but deteriorated over a period of years. While she was first seen at Shands, the family had the time and researched other prominent institutions, including Texas Children’s Hospital, Boston Children’s Hospital, Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. They did this because, like all of the parents that testified, they “would have gone to the ends of the earth” to save their child. This family researched the volumes and experience of the programs they considered and looked for what they felt was the best program for their child, and ultimately chose Shands. It was clear that they felt Shands was the right choice. Their daughter received her heart transplant at Shands, is doing well, and is now considering what college to attend. Additionally, this family did not find the two hours and 35 minute travel time from their home in Brevard County to Shands to be an impediment, and actually consider Shands as being relatively close to their home. This testimony supports the obvious truism that obtaining the best possible outcome for a sick child is the paramount goal of any parent. The other parent witness called by AHCA has a daughter that, on Christmas Eve in 2008, went from perfectly healthy to near death and being placed on life support within a 24-hour period. As opposed to a congenital heart defect, this patient had cardiomyopathy. This family lives in Windermere, a suburb of Orlando. She acquired a virus that attacked her heart. She was initially treated at Arnold Palmer Children’s Hospital where she had to be placed on ECMO. From there, she was safely airlifted to Shands while still on ECMO where, upon arrival, the receiving team of physicians informed the family that she was one of the most critically ill children they had ever seen. After an 11-hour open-heart surgery, a Berlin Heart was successfully implanted and kept her alive for four months until an appropriate donor heart became available. This patient also had an excellent outcome and is now a student at the University of Florida. The following exchange summarizes how the child’s mother felt about the inconvenience of having to travel from the Orlando area to Gainesville: Q If a family in Orlando told you, or in your city of residence told you that their child was critically ill and they were worried about having to travel and potentially spend time in Gainesville to get care, what would you tell them? A Well, I would tell them to just take it a day at a time and – when your child is critically ill, convenience never really comes into your mind. What comes into your mind is how do I help my child live. And so you will go anywhere. And it’s just an hour and a half, it just doesn’t matter. When you are talking about saving your child, it means nothing. It literally means nothing. It is clear from the testimony of these two parents that nothing about having a gravely ill child is “convenient.” It creates great stress, but it was also clear that having an experienced provider was more important than just geographic proximity. The mothers of the two Shands patients persuasively spoke of their concerns about further diluting the volumes of the existing programs that could result from approval of a sixth pediatric heart transplant program in Florida, particularly when there are two other programs that are not that far from the Orlando area.4/ While transplantation is not an elective service, it is not done on an emergent basis. As noted, the number of families affected is, quite fortunately, very small. While having a child with these issues is never “convenient,” the travel issues that might exist do not outweigh the weight of the evidence that fails to demonstrate a need for approval of either application. The Orlando area, being centrally located in Florida, is reasonably accessible to all of the existing providers. Most appear to go to Shands, which is simply not a substantial distance away. The credible evidence is that families facing these issues are able to deal with the travel inconvenience. In addition, Nemours presented evidence regarding the various locations at which they provide services, ranging from Pensacola to Port St. Lucie. Clearly, Nemours sees itself as providing some cardiac services to patients in these locations, but it would also suggest that patients seen at these locations may be referred to NCH for transplant services, which would mean that some patients would be bypassing closer facilities. As observed by AHCA, for Nemours to posit that it is appropriate for patients to travel from Pensacola or Jacksonville to Orlando while asserting that it is not acceptable for patients in Orlando to go to Gainesville or St. Petersburg is an illogical inconsistency. Financial Access Nemours asserts that approval of its proposed programs will enhance financial access to care. Nemours currently serves patients without regard to ability to pay and will extend these same policies to transplant recipients. Approximately half of Nemours’ projected PHTs are to be provided to Medicaid recipients, the other half to commercially insured patients.5/ However, there was no competent evidence of record that access to PHT or PHLT services was being denied by any of the existing transplant providers because of a patient’s inability to pay. Transplant Rates at Shands In its need methodology, Nemours utilized the use rate from OTSA 1 where Shands is located because it is the highest use rate in the state. Despite this, Nemours then asserted that Shands is not performing as many PHTs as it could or should. The Nemours CON applications are not predicated on any argument that their proposed programs are needed because of poor quality care at any of the existing pediatric transplant programs in Florida. Indeed, Dr. Wearden stated his belief that Shands provides good quality care in its transplant programs, and he respects the Shands lead surgeon, Dr. Mark Bleiweis. As evidence of his respect for the Shands PHT program, Dr. Wearden has referred several transplant patients to Dr. Bleiweis at Shands. Despite that position, Nemours argued that the Shands program is unduly conservative and cautious in its organ selection and may have some “capacity” issues due to a few cited instances of apparent surgeon unavailability. These assertions, made by Nemours witnesses with no first-hand knowledge of the operations of the Shands program, are not persuasive. With regard to whether the Shands program is unduly “cautious,” “conservative,” or “picky,” Nemours relied on a document produced by Shands in discovery. Nemours also relied on data reported by Shands to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). The data included a list of all of the organs offered to Shands since the beginning of 2015, the sequencing of the offer of that organ to Shands, whether the organ was transplanted at Shands or elsewhere, the primary and secondary reasons the organ was refused (if refused) and other information. The SRTR exhibit demonstrates that a high number of the organs that are offered are not acceptable for transplant on patients waitlisted at Shands. It also shows that organs that are accepted may have to be examined by many different centers before being deemed potentially acceptable. This demonstrates the extensive level of complexity, nuance, and clinical judgment involved in the decision to accept an organ for transplant in a pediatric patient. Indeed, Dr. Wearden agreed that the decision by a program to accept or turn down an organ involves both clinical expertise and judgment, and that there are many reasons an organ might be turned down, which helps explain why the transplanted percentage of total organs offered nationally is on average, so small. Dr. Wearden chose a few examples of organs that were not taken by Shands to express an opinion that Shands may be unduly conservative in its organ selection. However, this assertion was credibly refuted by Dr. Pietra, a transplant cardiologist and the medical director of the UF Health Congenital Heart Center. Dr. Pietra discussed the complexity of these cases and how simply looking at the SRTR data does not provide enough information to reach Dr. Wearden’s conclusion. An organ that might be acceptable for one patient would not be acceptable for another for a host of reasons. Many more organs are rejected by transplant centers than are accepted. Dr. Pietra credibly opined that being conservative and cautious are important traits for a transplant surgeon, particularly for one that wants the accepted organ to work well for the patient long-term. That does not mean that Shands is rejecting organs when it should have taken them, nor does the SRTR data support the proposition that the Nemours program should be approved because its program may have accepted an organ for a particular patient that Shands might have rejected. Nemours also argues that Shands performs PHTs at a rate lower than the region and the country, and that this should mitigate for the approval of another program. This assertion is predicated on waitlist information reported in the SRTR data. Patients that are placed on the waitlist have different status designations, depending on the severity of their condition. That status may change, up or down, over time. Due to the shortage of organs, until a patient reaches status 1A, he or she is unlikely to be offered an organ. The evidence reflected that Shands puts patients on the PHT organ waitlist at a time earlier than the moment they require the transplant surgery under what is called the “pediatric prerogative.” This helps those patients maintain their status on the list but does not result in organs being provided to less severely ill patients to the detriment of those in greater need. Further, the record evidence supports the finding that Shands waitlists patients because the clinical determination has been made that the child will ultimately require a transplant. This was corroborated by the parent of a Shands PHT patient who testified that when her daughter was placed on the waitlist, Dr. Fricker concluded at that time that her daughter would ultimately need a PHT, even though she was placed on a lower status initially, and it was a few years before the transplant occurred. Transplant surgeon Dr. Victor Morell, of the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, testified that he waitlists his PHT patients not only when they need the procedure performed immediately, but rather when, in his clinical judgment, he determines the patient will ultimately need a PHT. This testimony supports the finding that there is nothing clinically unusual or inappropriate about how the Shands program waitlists patients. Shands realizes that its philosophy, which is contemplated within and permitted under the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) rules, makes its statistics, both in terms of percent of patients transplanted and waitlist mortality, look worse. While Shands’ waitlist mortality may be higher than expected as reflected in the SRTR data, it is still significantly lower than in the UNOS region or the United States. Shands advocates for its patients by their waitlist practices because it believes it helps secure the best outcomes for its patients. It does not indicate need for a new PHT program. Nemours also suggests that there may be a “capacity” problem at Shands because the organ rejection information provided by Shands shows that, during the 3-year period of CY 2015 through CY 2017, there were seven entries showing as either a primary or secondary reason for organ rejection that the surgeon was unavailable. However, this included both adult and pediatric hearts, and further investigation revealed that in only four instances were there potential PHT recipients at Shands. Of those four hearts that were rejected, two were not accepted by any PHT provider, and the two that were accepted were placed with adult transplant patients, not PHT patients. Shands has two PHT transplant surgeons. In very few instances at Shands, an organ was offered but not accepted because the surgeon was not available for one of several reasons. In one instance, there was another transplant scheduled. A surgeon could be ill, could be gone, or may have just completed another long surgery and be too fatigued to safely perform another. Like Shands, Nemours also has two experienced PHT surgeons. Although Dr. Wearden believes that Nemours would endeavor to not reject an organ for this reason, this ambition ignores reality. He cannot guarantee that the same could not or would not happen at Nemours for the same reasons it occasionally occurs at Shands. As explained by Dr. Pietra, when there are only small to medium volume programs, there is not likely to be a sufficient number of surgeons such that this scenario can be avoided entirely. Not Normal Circumstances In both its heart and heart/lung applications, Nemours articulated the following “not normal circumstances” in seeking approval: Florida does not have any approved pediatric heart/lung transplant programs. Florida's only two approved pediatric lung transplant programs have not performed any lung transplant programs in the last two reporting years according to AHCA reporting data. Significantly, there are no pediatric heart transplant or lung transplant programs in AHCA's Organ Transplant Service Area OTSA 3 in which NCH is located-an area of the State with one the fastest growing and youngest populations. Florida has no other pediatric comprehensive, multi-organ thoracic transplant program. Florida has no other pediatric comprehensive, multi-organ thoracic transplant program that is part of a pediatric specific integrated delivery system such as Nemours offers. NCH offers a unique, dedicated model of cardiothoracic care developed at its Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children (AIDHC) in Wilmington, Delaware and implemented upon the opening of the program at NCH. The key and differentiating element of this Model of Care is a unified team of cardiac clinical and administrative professionals who serve children with cardiac problems in dedicated facilities (the "Cardiac Team"). The Cardiac Team only cares for children with cardiac diagnoses. As such, the Cardiac Team of anesthesiologists, surgeons, cardiologists, nurses, and other support personnel do not "float" to other hospital floors or departments as in a typical hospital setting. This dedicated model of cardiac care allows the Cardiac Team to develop highly specialized knowledge and relationships to provide the best treatment protocols for patients with cardiac conditions. NCH has developed state-of-the art facilities and innovative clinical pathways for the care of the most complex pediatric thoracic patients. NCH has and will bring new opportunities for research in pediatric cardiology, cardiac surgery, and pulmonary medicine, particularly clinical translational and basic research into the linkages between childhood obesity and cardiac conditions. Nemours operates a regional network of clinics in Florida, with primary locations in Pensacola, Jacksonville, and Orlando, that will operate in partnership with NCH for the appropriate regional referral of patients in Florida for pediatric thoracic care. NCH can reduce the out-migration of pediatric, thoracic transplant patients from OTSA 3 to other parts of the State as well as the out-migration of these patients to other out-of-state transplant programs. Similarly, NCH will reduce the outmigration of organs donated in Florida to other states ensuring that Florida recipient patients are first priority for organs donated in Florida. NCH has in place the infrastructure, facilities, and resources to seamlessly add thoracic transplant services to its existing comprehensive cardiac surgery program. Additional needed staff are already being recruited to this program. As a result, the project has minimal incremental cost that will need to be incurred. Total project costs are, therefore, estimated to be $715,425.00. In addition, according to Nemours, an additional “not normal” circumstance has emerged since the filing of the applications: the approval of Nemours’ PLT application in the absence of a PHT program at the facility, which it contends is “a very unusual situation.” Noteworthy about these purported reasons for approval are that: (1) none of them are specifically directed at a unique circumstance relating to a need for another PHT program; and (2) most of them are either a recitation of the fact that there is no existing program in the service area or are about Nemours’ capability to provide these services. They are not directed at whether there is a need for its proposed programs. In fact, the main thrust of Nemours’ case was directed at proof regarding its capabilities. But the flaw in this theme is best demonstrated in the testimony of Dawn Tucker, the last witness called by Nemours. Ms. Tucker is the cardiac program administrative director for Nemours. When asked why she supported the proposed program, she talked about the experience of the team, a desire to care for sick patients, an organization (Nemours) that financially supports the program, and the network of centers that Nemours has in Florida. These factors address why Nemours “wants” these CONs. None of them addresses the threshold issue of whether there is a “need” for these programs in OTSA 3. More specifically, the first, third, and fourth bullet points are all based on the absence of a program in OTSA 3. By rule, that is not a basis for establishing need. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59C-1.009(2)(e)3. AHCA appropriately rejected the absence of a program in OTSA 3 as the sole basis upon which need for the proposed projects could be established. The second bullet point relates to the pediatric lung transplant application that is not at issue in this matter. The fifth and sixth bullet points relate to the Nemours integrated model of care. But again, this does not address whether there is a need for the proposed programs. The fact that Nemours has an employed-physician model is not unique or “not normal.” AHCA considered the information regarding the model of care and correctly noted that the model of care does not itself enhance access or improve outcomes. It should be noted that Shands’ doctors are employed by the University of Florida. In addition, the reliance on this model does not guarantee a robust program. This bullet point references the much older and more established Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Delaware, that is touted as the model for Nemours. Nemours presented evidence relating to its more established hospital in Delaware that also provides PHT services. However, the PHT program at duPont is a low-volume program, performing only one PHT in 2016. None of the managed- care companies that recognize Shands as a center of excellence also recognizes the duPont Hospital as such. One of the companies--Lifetrac--acknowledges duPont as a “supplemental” program, whereas Shands is one of its “select” programs. This demonstrates that simply having the financial resources of the duPont Foundation or the model of care used by that organization does not guarantee high volumes or success. The “not normal circumstance” bullet points regarding Nemours’ facilities, research, and other infrastructure similarly do not demonstrate need. Otherwise, a hospital could obtain a CON for a new program by spending the money in advance and then demanding approval based upon those expenditures. AHCA recognized that Nemours had recruited some very qualified clinicians, but correctly noted that that does not create or evidence need for the proposed programs. The remaining bullet point asserts that approval of the PHT and PHLT programs could reduce outmigration of both patients and organs. By definition, because neither of these transplant programs exists in OTSA 3, all patients leave OTSA 3 for these services. Again, that alone does not establish need, nor is it automatically a “not normal” circumstance. As discussed herein, Nemours has not demonstrated a sufficient need or an access problem that justifies approval of either application. With regard to the outmigration of organs from Florida, Nemours has argued that Florida is a net exporter of organs and that this is a “not normal” circumstance justifying approval of its application. However, organs harvested in one state are commonly used in another. There is nothing unusual or negative about that fact. Indeed, Dr. Wearden agreed that in his experience, this is a common occurrence. There is a national allocation system through UNOS and this sharing, as explained by Dr. Pietra, facilitates the best match for organs and patients. UNOS divides the country into regions for the purpose of allocation of donor organs, with Florida being one of six states in Region 3. The evidence of record did not establish that approval of the Nemours applications would result in the reduction of organs leaving Florida, or even that such would be a desirable result. Nemours also argued at hearing that approving their applications would increase the number of donor organs that are procured and transplanted in Florida. Nemours suggested that its programs would increase public awareness and implied that it would accept organs for future patients that surgeons at other programs turn down. However, these arguments are purely conjectural and are rejected. No record evidence exists which demonstrates that a Nemours program would increase the supply of organs in Florida. Indeed, Nemours presented no such relevant data or statistical evidence in its applications to demonstrate that this will occur. Finally, Nemours argues that its PHT and PHLT applications should be approved because it does not make sense for AHCA to have approved the PLT program but denied the other two applications. Nemours goes on to note that while there are hospitals in the country that do PHTs but not PLTs, there are no hospitals that do lungs but not hearts. Regardless of whether that is true, Florida law separates these three services into separate CON applications, which are reviewed independently. The wisdom of the rule is not at issue in this proceeding. Regardless of any overlap in the skill sets required to perform these procedures, approval of the pediatric lung transplant application does not determine need for pediatric heart or pediatric heart/lung programs. Nemours failed to establish that “not normal” circumstances currently exist that would warrant approval of either the PHT or PHLT programs. Nor did Nemours credibly demonstrate any other indicators of need for its proposed programs. 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. The parties stipulated that Nemours is a quality provider. However, AHCA maintains that this criterion is in dispute to the extent that center transplant volume as a result of Nemours’ approval would lead to or correlate with negative patient outcomes. Nemours failed to demonstrate that it would achieve the volumes it projected unless it takes significant volumes from other Florida providers.6/ Approval of Nemours will not create transplant patients that do not exist or are not currently able to reasonably access services. While Nemours has assembled a team of professionals with varying levels of transplant experience, it has not been demonstrated that it will achieve volume sufficient to reasonably assure quality care.7/ Section 408.035(1)(e): The extent to which the proposed services will enhance access to health care for residents of the service district. Approval of the Nemours PHT and PHLT programs would unquestionably improve geographic access to those services for the very few residents of OTSA 3 that need them. However, given the extreme rarity of pediatric heart and heart/lung transplants, approval of the Nemours programs would not result in enhanced access for a significant number of patients. Moreover, there was no credible non-hearsay evidence presented at hearing that any resident of OTSA 3 that needed PHT or PHLT services was unable to access those services at one of the existing PHT programs in Florida or, for PHLT, at a facility elsewhere. Based upon persuasive evidence at hearing, there is also clearly a positive relationship between volume and outcomes. As with any complex endeavor, practice makes perfect. In this instance, maintaining a minimum PHT case volume provides experience to the clinicians involved and helps maintain proficiency. According to the credible testimony of Dr. Pietra, programs should perform no fewer than 10 PHTs per year. “If you can stay above 10, then your program is going to be exercised at a minimum amount to keep everybody sort of at a peak performance.” The clear intent of the minimum volume requirement of 12 heart transplants per year contained in rule 59C- 1.044(6)(b)2. is to ensure a sufficient case volume to maintain the proficiency of the transplant surgeons and other clinicians involved in the surgical and post-surgical care of PHT patients. In addition, pediatric transplant programs are measured statistically based on outcomes, such as mortality and morbidity. Because of this, the loss of even one patient in a small program can be devastating to that hospital’s mortality statistics. As such, small programs may become less willing to take more complicated patients. In a perverse sort of way, adding more programs that dilute volumes may decrease, rather than increase, access because of the fear a small program might have for taking more complex patients. Adequate case volume is also important for teaching facilities, such as Shands, to benefit residents of all the OTSAs by being able to train the next generation of transplant physicians. The mothers of the two Shands patients that testified made note of the complexity of their daughters’ conditions and how their cases were used for training purposes. There was no persuasive evidence of record that approval of the Nemours applications would meaningfully and significantly enhance geographic access to transplant services in OTSA 3. The modest improvement in geographic access for the few patients that are to be served by the two programs is not significant enough to justify approval in the absence of demonstrated need. There is no evidence that approval of the Nemours applications will enhance financial access nor that patients are not currently able to access PHT or PHLT services because of payor status. Section 408.035(1)(g): The extent to which the proposal will foster competition that promotes quality and cost- effectiveness. It is clear that establishing and maintaining a transplant program is expensive. Given the limited pool of patients, the added expense of yet a sixth Florida program is not a cost-effective use of resources. This criterion also relates to the Nemours position that AHCA should approve the PHT and PHLT applications simply because the PLT application was approved, and it would not be cost-effective for Nemours unless the PHT and PHLT applications were also approved. However, each of these applications must rise or fall on its own merit. As of the hearing, Nemours had not yet implemented its PLT program. Given the absence of need for either the PHT or PHLT programs, the cost-effective solution might be for Nemours to reconsider implementation of the PLT program. 408.035(1)(i): The applicant’s past and proposed provision of health care services to Medicaid patients and the medically indigent. AHCA agreed at hearing that Nemours satisfies section 408.035(1)(i). Nonetheless, Nemours provides a very high level of Medicaid services, and projects a high-level volume related to Medicaid patients and charity care patients. As noted, approximately half of the PHTs projected by Nemours will be performed on Medicaid patients. Conformance with this criterion would mitigate toward approval had there been persuasive evidence that Medicaid and medically indigent patients are currently being denied access to PHT and PHLT services. However, no such evidence was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying CON Application Nos. 10471 and 10472 filed by The Nemours Foundation, d/b/a Nemours Children’s Hospital. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 31st day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether certificate of need application number 7184 for the establishment of adult open heart surgery services at Baptist Hospital, Pensacola, Florida, filed in March 1993, meets statutory and rule criteria for approval.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 23, 1993, Baptist Hospital, Inc., ("Baptist"), Pensacola, Florida, filed a certificate of need ("CON") application to establish an adult open heart surgery program for a total project cost of $2.35 million. Baptist's application was subsequently numbered CON 7184, and was approved preliminarily by the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") on July 7, 1993. Conditions for the issuance of the CON were drafted by Elizabeth Dudek of AHCA. Violations of CON conditions may result in sanctions, including fines of up to $1,000 a day. The conditions, as drafted, are as follows: The provision of a minimum of 3 percent of total annual adult open heart surgeries to Medicaid patients. The provision of a minimum of 3 percent of total annual adult open heart surgeries to charity care patients. A fixed rate structure by DRG for open heart surgery discharge (DRGs 104-108) will be set at a level which is 85 percent of the average of the most recently available charges at Sacred Heart and West Florida Regional, inflated at 7.5 percent annually. Baptist shall ensure a minimum annual adult open heart surgery patient volume of 350 at each Sacred Heart and HCA West Florida. (This assurance shall not be achieved though the transfer of charity care patients). Baptist is a 546-bed hospital, with 388 medical/surgical beds, 62 acute care beds being used as skilled nursing beds, 76 psychiatric and 20 substance abuse beds. Baptist is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider and a designated Level II trauma center, located in Pensacola, Escambia County, in AHCA District I. District I includes Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, and Walton Counties. Baptist's primary service area is Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties in Florida, and Baldwin and Escambia Counties in Alabama. Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola ("Sacred Heart") the oldest hospital in Pensacola, is licensed for 391 beds, including 42 Level II and III neonatal intensive care beds, and is a Level II trauma center. Sacred Heart has an approved CON to add 40 acute care beds for a women's and children's hospital. In late 1995, construction is expected to be completed. After the women's and children's hospital is finished, Sacred Heart will undertake the construction of 12 additional critical care beds which it projects will be operational in 1996. Sacred Heart is a Medicaid disproportionate share provider. Sacred Heart initiated an open heart surgery program in the early 1970's, and is located approximately 4 to 6 miles from Baptist. Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties are in Sacred Heart's primary service area. The secondary service area includes Okaloosa and Walton Counties, and sections of Alabama. Approximately 65 percent of the total open heart surgery patients in Escambia County, and 51 to 58 percent of the total from Santa Rosa County have open heart surgeries at Sacred Heart. West Florida Regional Medical Center ("West Florida") is a 547-bed existing provider of open heart surgery services, composed of 378 medical/surgical care, 21 skilled nursing, 89 psychiatric, and 58 comprehensive medical rehabilitative beds. West Florida is also a state Level II trauma center, in Pensacola. West Florida is approximately 7 to 9 miles from Sacred Heart, and approximately the same distance from Baptist. Open heart surgery services were initiated in 1975 at West Florida, which is the dominant provider to residents of Okaloosa and Walton Counties. West Florida Regional's service area includes all of District 1. Three open heart surgery programs exist in Mobile, Alabama, approximately one to one and a half hour drive from Pensacola, two more in Dothan, Alabama, and one in Panama City, in AHCA District 2. Over 90 percent of the population in District 1 is located within a two-hour average drive to an existing open heart surgery program. Numeric Need On February 5, 1993, AHCA published a fixed need pool of zero for additional adult open heart surgery programs in District I for the July 1995 planning horizon. Two subsequent publications of need for an additional open heart surgery program in the district have also resulted in zero numeric need. When zero numeric need is computed, using the formula in Rule 59C-1.033(7)(b), an applicant has to demonstrate not normal circumstances for the approval of the application. In addition, a new adult open heart surgery program will not normally be approved if the formula in subsection (c) of that rule yields a result less than 350, indicating that existing programs in the district will be reduced to volumes below 350 annual open heart surgery operations. The calculation to determine whether this condition applies was 346.67. A fixed need pool of zero was published and not challenged. Vol. 19, No. 5, Florida Administrative Weekly, February 5, 1993. Not Normal Circumstances for Need Baptist describes certain conditions as not normal circumstances for the approval of its open heart surgery program. The not normal circumstances described are (1) a lack of financial access for uninsured persons, (2) utilization and capacity problems at one of the two existing providers in the district, (3) the size of Baptist Hospital, and the size and complexity of its cardiology services, and the fixed price and minimum volume conditions proposed for the approval of the CON. Financial Access Baptist asserts that its program will serve uninsured patients, who are a financially underserved group in its service area. Baptist proposes in its pro forma to serve up to 15 uninsured open heart surgery patients in year one and up to 19 in year two. Assuming the percentage of uninsured persons in District 1 is comparable to that for the entire state and assuming the open heart surgery use rate for the uninsured would otherwise be the same, Baptist's expert claimed that 53 uninsured persons were denied open heart surgery services in District 1 in 1993. Baptist's opponents challenged the admissibility of evidence related to uninsured persons as an impermissible amendment not discussed in the application. Assuming arguendo, that the evidence is admissible, Baptist failed to document any unmet need for uninsured persons, which its proposal will alleviate. There was more credible evidence that uninsured persons have a lower use rate for reasons other than the absence of another program in the district, including age, lack of access to primary care physicians, lack of referrals to cardiovascular surgeons, and the failure to secure Medicaid coverage. No advantage is gained with referrals of patients to the same group of cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons who currently serve both Sacred Heart and Baptist, in the absence of evidence that the doctors can and will accept more Medicaid and indigent patients. The use rate for Medicaid patients in District 1, adjusted for age, shows equal access to open heart surgery services, as compared to other payer groups. District 1 Demographics and Utilization AHCA District 1 includes Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties. Approximately 250,000 people reside in Escambia County, with slightly over half of the district population located in the other three counties in the district. Escambia is the western-most county in the district and the state. From 1992 to 1997, adult population growth is projected to be lower in Escambia County (2.6 percent) than it is district-wide (6.5 percent) which, in turn, is lower than the statewide growth rates (9 percent). Open heart surgery services began in District 1 prior to 1988 at both Sacred Heart and West Florida. From 1988 to 1993, the volumes of procedures in District 1 and the state have been as follows: 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 District 1 805 803 733 901 1,006 848 Statewide 18,961 19,819 22,010 23,748 26,078 25,190 From July 1991 - June 1992, there were 498 and 493 open heart surgery procedures at Sacred Heart and West Florida Regional, respectively, for a total of 991 procedures in AHCA District I. At West Florida Regional, open heart surgeries declined from 533 in 1992 to 418 in 1993. Open heart surgery use rates in District 1 and statewide are declining or becoming comparatively more level. Most residents of the district receive open heart surgery services in the district, with fewer than 3 percent out-migration. Baptist's expert claimed that the 1993 decline was an anomaly rather than a trend, comparing District 1 to AHCA districts which experienced a 1993 decline, but are reporting larger volumes for the first quarter of 1994. The volumes were not annualized to take into account seasonal fluctuations. In fact, Baptist's cardiologists also noted the increase in alternative procedures such as angioplasty, electrophysiology, and drug therapies. In the first quarter of 1994, there were 250 open heart surgery procedures in the district, as compared to 265 in 1992, and 208 in 1993. Annualized for the entire year to adjust for seasonal variations, 980 open heart surgeries are expected in 1994. Expert projections of total open heart surgeries at District 1 facilities for 1995-1998 are in a range as follows: 1995 1996 1997 1998 880 - 1,051 894 - 1,069 908 - 1,085 921 - 1,100 Sacred Heart's occupancy for total acute care beds was 74.8 percent in 1991, 74.5 percent in 1992, and 74.4 percent in 1993. However, Sacred Heart's critical care unit ("CCU") is frequently at capacity during the peak season in the winter months. Delays of 1 to 3 days before patients are admitted for elective open heart surgery operations and elective angioplasties, are not uncommon. Elective procedures are those performed on patients who are stabilized with drug therapies pending the procedure. There is no evidence of delays in transfers for emergency angioplasties or emergency open heart surgeries, other than the time required to follow transfer protocols. Actual Sacred Heart CCU utilization was 83.4 percent in 1991, 84.4 percent in 1992, and 81.2 percent in 1993. Sacred Heart's expert in health planning, Mark Richardson's opinion that over 75 to 77 percent occupancy in a CCU means inadequate capacity to add a new open heart program, but not to serve an existing program is accepted. In addition, Sacred Heart plans to add 12 beds to the critical care unit in early 1996, and has improved case management procedures to alleviate capacity limits in the CCU, and scheduling heart surgeries. Two of the three cath labs at Sacred Heart are used for cardiac caths, electrophysiological studies and angioplasties. Sacred Heart has the capacity to perform 4,200 total cases a year. There are no problems associated with the capacity of the cardiac cath labs at Sacred Heart. The expert testimony is undisputed that West Florida Regional provides excellent quality of care, has excess cath lab, CCU and operating room capacity, and is in an excellent position to increase utilization without additional construction and with minimum additional staff. Cardiologists at Baptist resist transferring patients to West Florida, where they have not sought staff privileges. The statement in Baptists' CON application that the "closed medical staff arrangement at West Florida Regional limits referrals" from Baptist and Sacred Heart is not supported by the evidence. Staff privileges in various categories, including temporary privileges are available to physicians who apply. There was an inference that only doctors affiliated with the hospital's clinics gain privileges at West Florida. From September 1993 to April 1994, over one hundred doctors not affiliated with West Florida's Medical Clinic referred patients to the cath lab at West Florida. West Florida has the capacity to perform from 2500 to 3000 procedures in the two cardiac cath labs and one electrophsiology lab and from 800 to 1000 open heart surgery procedures in its 2 dedicated operating rooms. In 1993, there were 1453 cardiac cath, 387 angioplasties, and 418 open heart surgery procedures at West Florida Regional. A resident of the Baptist area and former patient, and a doctor with privileges at Baptist complained that the drive to West Florida takes up to 30 minutes. There is no credible claim of geographic access problems to West Florida, as defined by Rule 59C-1.033(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[a]dult open heart surgery shall be available within a maximum automobile travel time of 2 hours under average conditions for at least 90 percent of the district's population." Medical risks of transfers do not outweigh the benefits of concentrated expertise in open heart surgery programs. That determination is one basis for AHCA's rule designating open heart surgery services as tertiary services. Cardiology Consultants is a group of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, nurses and support staff which provides services to Baptist and Sacred Heart. The chairman of Cardiology Consultants does not travel to West Florida Regional because it is an inefficient use of his time. Because their patients would have to be transferred to cardiologists other than themselves or others in their group, the cardiologists are reluctant to make referrals from Baptist to West Florida Regional for open heart surgery. The cardiologists and one former patient who testified agreed that Sacred Heart's open heart surgery services provided excellent quality of care. By contrast, Baptist's expert, Dr. Luke, claimed that an analysis of severity adjusted mortality rates showed outcomes at Sacred Heart significantly below that statistically expected, and below that experienced at West Florida Regional. That testimony is not reliable due to his lack of an explanation of the methodology involved in the compilation of the report. The analysis was offered to demonstrate that Baptist could capture a larger market share than Sacred Heart. If Dr. Luke's assertions on quality of care are true, the conclusion would suggest that Baptist-based cardiologists refer patients almost exclusively to a lower quality facility to avoid referrals to cardiologists outside their group at West Florida. That conclusion is rejected based on the expert's admission of his lack of clinical expertise to render opinions on quality of care. One of the reasons advanced for the approval of the Baptist CON is that Baptist and Sacred Heart operate, in effect, a unified, high quality single cardiology program with a shared chief cardiologist, shared on-call cath lab staff, and virtually identical, overlapping medical staffs from the Cardiology Consultants group. Cardiology Consultants maintains offices at both Sacred Heart and Baptist. Because the group staffs both hospitals, Baptist argues that its cardiology program should be viewed in terms of serving a 1000 bed hospital, and the statutory criterion on joint or shared programs would apply. In fact, an agreement for a shared or joint CON application was rejected by Sacred Heart. Baptist, in this case, is seeking to establish a program which competes with that at Sacred Heart. Baptist's Size and Programs Baptist cited its size and the breadth of its existing cardiology services as a not normal basis for approval of its open heart surgery program. Baptist is one of only three hospitals in Florida exceeding 500 beds, performing over 1100 cardiac caths without open heart surgery backup. There are also 58 Florida hospitals with cardiac cath services without an open heart surgery program. The Baptist network in District 1 includes two other hospitals of 60 and 55 beds, and affiliations with four of the five hospitals located in Baldwin and Escambia Counties, Alabama. Baptist's actual medical/surgical bed size is 388, as compared to 391 operational and 40 more approved for a total of 431 at Sacred Heart, and 379 at West Florida Regional. All three of the Pensacola hospitals are described by AHCA's witnesses as "large." Since the late 1980's, Baptist has followed a long range plan to develop a first floor heart center. The most recent cath lab construction included shelled-in space to relocate the backup lab from the fourth floor to the first floor. The projected cost of moving the lab, as is, is $50,000 to $60,000. By comparison to the first floor lab, the fourth floor lab equipment is not state-of-the-art. Upgrading the fourth floor lab is expected to cost $400,000. Baptist has a large volume cardiology program, with a broad range of services, and claims to treat sicker cardiac patients. In fiscal year 1993, there were 1106 cardiac caths, 146 electrophysiology studies, 118 pacemaker implants, 69 coronary angioplasties, 20 vascular angioplasties, and 28 defibrillator implants. Baptist's claim that it provided services to more severe cardiac cases, based on a computer analysis of unknown variables with inadequately explained data input is not substantiated. If open heart surgery services are not approved at Baptist, the cardiology program will not be able to expand to include alternative less invasive techniques which require open heart surgery backup. Without open heart surgery, however, other cardiology services at Baptist have been able to develop and currently contribute approximately $12 million annually to net revenue, with a $6.4 million contribution margin. In the cardiac diagnostic categories, 80 percent of Baptist patients come from Escambia County with an additional 5 percent from Santa Rosa County. Baptist anticipates having the capacity in its two cardiac cath labs to handle the anticipated increase of 100 to 150 angioplasties, expected to result from the establishment of an open heart surgery program, in its two laboratories which are currently at 65 percent utilization. Utilization is approximately 80 percent in the first floor cath lab, which is used for almost all cardiac caths and angioplasties. The fourth floor cath lab is used exclusively for pacemaker implants and electrophysiology studies, not for cardiac caths or angioplasties. If approved, Baptist can meet the requirement of AHCA rules related to adequate staffing and the availability and quality of its service. Angioplasties were performed at Baptist, prior to the requirement for back-up open heart surgery services. However, an exception was given to Baptist in a letter from AHCA's predecessor agency in 1987. Baptist is allowed to have invasive cardiologists perform angioplasties in an emergency or if open heart surgery is not a viable option, as happens for some patients who have had prior open heart surgeries. Proposed CON Conditions As a condition for approval of this project, Baptist proposes to set charges, through September 1997, at the lesser of actual charges or 85 percent of the inflated average charges of the two existing providers, but not less than 50 percent of charges. Initially, Baptist proposed to adhere to the condition for the first three years, from July 1994 to September 1997. Having been delayed due to litigation, Baptist's expert financial witness testified that Baptist would adhere to the condition for three years after approval of the application. Baptist did not agree to adhere permanently to the fixed price structure, although no time limit is set in the AHCA draft of the proposed condition. AHCA did not consider the proposed condition a not normal circumstance in this or a prior Baptist application. District 1 already has the lowest average charges statewide for open heart surgery services. Statewide charges are 27 percent higher than the average for Pensacola and 42 percent higher than Sacred Heart's. There will not be an enhancement of financial access as a result of approval of the Baptist CON. In addition, relatively few patients would benefit from the proposed fixed charges. Medicare, Medicaid, and managed care contractual agreements will not be affected by the proposed fixed rate charge structure. Baptist also proposed to adhere to a CON condition to monitor and maintain annual minimum volumes of 350 open heart surgeries at Sacred Heart and West Florida. In its CON application, Baptist projects 85 to 100 of its projected 165 open heart surgeries in year one would otherwise have been performed at Sacred Heart. The loss of net income was projected at $1.37 million or 9.6 percent of total net income. Baptist projected 35 surgeries lost to West Florida Regional, and the financial loss of a half a million dollars, or 6 percent of net income. Baptist's expert, Dr. Luke, noted that at least 925 open heart procedures must be performed in 1997 to allow Sacred Heart and West Florida Regional to maintain the 350 minimum volume of procedures. If there are three open heart surgery providers in Escambia County in 1998, Dr. Luke conceded that one of those programs will not have a minimum volume of 350 open heart surgery procedures a year. Historically, the required volume of open heart surgeries was exceeded only in 1992, and the highest projected volume by Baptist's expert is 1,100 for 1998. See, Findings of Fact 12 and 14. Baptist's expert asserted that the surgeons volume is more directly related to quality than the hospital's volume, but the hospital volume requirement is specifically recognized as a factor in Rule 59C-1.033(7)(c). To the extent that open heart surgery volumes at an existing provider decline, it is unlikely that Baptist can control decisions which are made based on the convenience of cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons, increasingly by health maintenance organizations and other insurers, and the preferences of patients or their families. While the proposed 350 minimum condition is intended to avoid adverse effects of the approval, there is no reason to create and then have to alleviate that potential problem absent a showing of need or not normal circumstances. The proposed condition is not, in and of itself, a not normal circumstance. Other Criteria Related To Need Local Health Plan The 1992 District 1 Allocation Factors Report is the applicable local health plan to the review of Baptist's CON application. However, the 1990 District 1 Allocation Factors were analyzed by Baptist, and therefore, the Baptist application addressed only those preferences common to the two plans. Preference one favors an applicant demonstrating cost efficiency, lower project costs, and the least increase in patient charges. Beyond the first three years of the program for very few patients, the fixed rate charge structure will not be effective in keeping patient costs lower. Therefore, Baptist does not meet the preference. The lowest cost expansion of open heart surgery services in the district is the use of the excess capacity at West Florida Regional, with capacity for 800 to 1000 open heart surgeries as compared to the highest district-wide projection of 1,100 open heart surgeries in 1998. See, Finding of Facts 14 and 16. The second preference for bed conversions to increase utilization is not applicable to the proposed project. Preference three favors converting existing capacity to expand services over new construction. Baptist proposed to dedicate 2 exising rooms for open heart surgery, and to renovate 9,660 square feet, including a 2-bed expansion of the existing 8-bed cardiac care unit (CCU), to relocate a 6-bed eye unit, to expand by 9-beds an existing 18-bed step-down unit, to establish of a 12-bed progressive care unit, and to relocate a cystoscopy room. Total project costs are projected to equal $2,350,000. The Baptist proposal for renovations is preferable to new construction, but cannot be favored due to the alternative of using exising capacity at West Florida Regional. Preference four for joint ventures or shared services that mutually increase efficiency as opposed to unilateral CON applications is not given to Baptist. Although the same group of cardiologists presently operates the cardiovascular surgeries as a unified program at both Baptist and Sacred Heart, this application is a unilateral application, not a joint program. It is a duplicative program. The fifth preference, for applicants proposing to serve patients regardless of ability to pay, favors the Baptist application. In response to the sixth preference, for applicants agreeing to provide the greatest percentage of Medicaid and indigent services, Baptist proposes 3.03 percent of cases to be Medicaid patients and 3.03 percent indigent patients for the first year of operation, and 2.44 percent Medicaid and 2.93 percent indigent for the second year, or up to 15 indigents in year one, and 19 in year two of initiating a open heart surgery program. In total operations at Baptist in 1991, Medicaid was approximately 20 percent and charity 3 percent. Sacred Heart which, like Baptist, is a disproportionate share provider, averaged approximately 23 percent Medicaid and 5 percent charity. West Florida provided approximately 4 percent Medicaid and 9 percent charity. Baptist is entitled to partial preference to the extent that its provision of Medicaid exceeds that of West Florida. Preference seven, for applicants demonstrating a history of serving the greatest percentage of indigent and Medicaid patients, is met by Baptist. Baptist is a disproportionate share provider of services to Medicaid and charity care. In 1991, Baptist also provided 7.3 percent charity and uncompensated care. The eighth preference, for expansion of existing facilities as opposed to the establishment and construction of a freestanding facility, is not applicable to this case. Preference nine for applications which increase a facility's weighted occupancy rate, preference ten for a facility with an actual occupancy rate equal to or above the weighted occupancy rate and preference eleven to avoid a decrease in a facility's weighted occupancy rate were not addressed by Baptist, having not been included in the earlier local plan. Preference twelve is given to CON applicants who describe the impact on patient case load and the estimated increase in subdistrict case load, but not to applicants who do not supply this information. Baptist met the preference by providing an analysis of the impact on patient case loads at Sacred Heart and West Florida Regional. Preference thirteen is given for CON applications that include a five year projected occupancy rate for the applicant facility that is equal to or greater than the rule standard rate for facilities, as specified in the state rule paragraph 59C-1.038(7)(e), currently 75 percent. Baptist did not provide five year projected occupancy rates. Preference fourteen, related to pediatric units, is not applicable to Baptist's proposal. Preference fifteen, related to eliminating ICU/CCU units of less than 10 beds, is not applicable to this project. Preference sixteen is met by Baptist's plans to establish periodic internal evaluations of staff and equipment performance. Baptist committed to meet preference seventeen by providing initial and ongoing training and educational programs for staff members treating or caring for open heart patients, including training staff at an existing high- volume hospital in Orlando. Preference eighteen is given for the creation and use of data collection systems to monitor and report patient volume, patient origin, charges, safety problems and complications. Baptist agrees to meet preference eighteen by collecting and reporting data for open heart surgery services, as it currently does for all other services. Preference nineteen for written referral agreements between facilities in District 1 is not met by Baptist. Preference twenty for a plan to record instances of service repetition due to poor results, data, or images, is met. An index of performance currently exists for cardiac cases at Baptist. The preference for applicants that demonstrate a history of or willingness to commit to provide health care services to AIDS patients, preference twenty-one, was not addressed by Baptist. Preference twenty-two, given to CON applicants that demonstrate they have provided the greatest percentage of the facility's available annual patient days to AIDS patients has not been addressed. On balance, Baptist failed to demonstrate compliance with the applicable local health plan, in part by failing to address some of the preferences. Baptist does meet preferences for serving patients regardless of their ability to pay, for its proposal to serve Medicaid and indigent patients, for having done so in the past, for quality assurance, data collection and training programs, and for including an impact analysis. State Health Plan The 1989 Florida State Health Plan provides six allocation preferences related to the review of CONs to establish open heart surgery programs. The first state plan preference favors applicants establishing new open heart surgery programs in larger counties in which the percentage of elderly is higher than the statewide average and the total population exceeds 100,000. Although the population of Escambia County exceeds 250,000, the preference is not met because the percentage of the population age 65 or over is 12.24 percent, in contrast to the statewide average of 18.59 percent. State plan preference two, for new open heart surgery programs which will reach a volume of 350 adult procedures annually within three years of initiating the program, is not met. Baptist projects that it will perform 165 open heart surgery procedures in the first year of operation and 205 operations in its second year of operation. Baptist did not include a third year projection. With a CON condition that Sacred Heart and West Florida will retain a minimum of 350 procedures, Baptist's expert, Dr. Luke, conceded that Baptist cannot achieve the 350 volume by its third year of operation. State preference three, for improved geographic accessibility and reduced travel time for residents leaving the district for open heart surgeries is not met by the Baptist application. Out-migration from District 1 is extremely low, approximately 3 percent, and the geographic access standard is met. State plan preference four, for hospitals which meet Medicaid disproportionate share criteria, is met by Baptist. State preference five which, in general, favors larger more efficient facilities is met by Baptist. Baptist has 388 medical/surgical beds, with $12 million in net revenue annually from its cardiology program. A large hospital is described by AHCA witnesses as one exceeding 350 to 400 beds. State health plan preference six, for applicants with protocols for the use of alternative non-surgical therapeutic cardiac procedures, is met by Baptist. On balance, Baptist's CON application does not comply with the state health plan. Although it meets the preferences for treating patients regardless of ability to pay, for a disproportionate share provider, and for a large, efficient hospital, and for the types of services proposed, Baptist is not located in an area with demographic characteristics indicative of need, and does not have the ability to attract enough patients from that population to reach sufficient open heart surgery volumes to assure a quality program. AHCA Review of the Baptist CON Application Dr. James T. Howell, the AHCA Division Director for Health Policy and Cost Containment, made the decision to approve the Baptist open heart surgery CON, because of Baptist's substantial, active, sophisticated cardiology program, its status as a high disproportionate share provider, its size, and because the results of the numeric need calculation and the formula for determining the reduced volume at existing providers were close to that required by rule. See, Finding of Fact 7. In February, 1993, after the numeric need publication and prior to the filing of the application at issue in this case, Dr. Howell, Albert Granger, and Robert Sharpe of AHCA met with the Mayor of Pensacola who is also Senior Vice President of Baptist Health Care and President of Baptist Health Care Foundation, and Baptist's Vice President for Planning who expressed frustration over the denials of its prior open heart surgery CON applications. Baptist submitted CON applications for open heart surgery in 1987, 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993. Among the issues of concern was the status of Sacred Heart and West Florida Regional as grandfathered providers resulting in their having "a permanent franchise." Baptist representatives expressed concern about their ability ever to secure an open heart surgery program under the current rules. After that meeting, the rule amendment process was initiated to allow consideration of data reported up to 3 months, rather than 6 months prior to the publication of the fixed need pool. At the time the Baptist application for CON 7184 was reviewed, the amendment had not been adopted. No other change in the open heart surgery rule has been made subsequent to the review of the prior Baptist CON application. When the Baptist application for CON 7184 was filed initially, Laura MacLafferty was assigned as AHCA's primary reviewer. The state agency action report ("SAAR") represents her factual analysis of the application, although she did not and, routinely, does not make recommendations to issue or deny CONs. Ms. MacLafferty and her supervisor, Alberta Granger, are not aware of any AHCA non-rule policy to determine if a calculation of minimum volume is "close" enough to the 350 standard of the rule, nor any agency guidelines to determine when a hospital is "large" or "operates a large cardiology program" which should include open heart surgery. Subsequent to reviewing the Baptist application, in December 1993, Ms. MacLafferty reviewed another open heart surgery application from District 1, filed on behalf of Fort Walton Beach Medical Center. In her review of both the Baptist and Fort Walton applications, Ms. MacLafferty found no documentation that patients in District 1 experienced problems with access to open heart surgery services. Ms. MacLafferty submitted the draft SAAR to a supervisor, Alberta Granger. The draft SAAR was retrieved from her desk, prior to Ms. Granger's reviewing it. It was removed by Elizabeth Dudek, who heads AHCA's CON and health care board sections. Ms. Granger did not review the SAAR, which was prepared by Ms. MacLafferty. The final draft was returned to Ms. Granger for her to sign on July 7, 1993. This was the only time since Ms. Granger became supervisor in the CON office, that she has not reviewed and discussed with Ms. Dudek SAARs prepared by her staff. Ms. Granger had been the primary reviewer of Baptist's 1989 CON application. Ms. Granger and her supervisor, Ms. Dudek, are aware that in this case and in one or more of its prior CON open heart surgery applications, Baptist argued that its size, scope of cardiology services, and proposed fixed rate structure were reasons to approve its proposal. Ms. Granger stated, and Ms. Dudek confirmed, that the usual procedure was not followed in the review of this and one other application in this batching cycle. In this batching cycle, Dr. Howell requested that Mr. Sharpe, head of AHCA's planning section, also review those two open heart surgery applications. Ms. Dudek recalls, that prior to 1987, there were two batches of approximately 12 total applications in which agency personnel other than the CON staff was involved in the review of CON applications. In making his decision on the Baptist application, Dr. Howell consulted Ms. Dudek and Mr. Sharpe. Ms. Dudek, who heads the CON and health care board section, was not initially in favor of the approval of the Baptist application. Mr. Sharpe, head of the planning section, prepared a 9 page analysis of the pros and cons of the Baptist proposal. The Sharpe analysis demonstrates that an increase of 9 additional open heart surgeries during the 12 month reporting period, and the use of the more current data under the pending rule revision would have resulted in the need for one additional open heart surgery program in District 1. The memorandum also demonstrated that a lower future volume of open heart surgeries is projected by using the actual use rate, as required by Rule 59C-1.033(7)(6)2, rather than a trended use rate. If these adjustments to the data are made to achieve numeric need, then Baptist's application could be approved without a showing of not normal circumstances. The memorandum also reported the October 1991-September 1992 volumes of cardiac cath admissions at Baptist as 2,677, at Sacred Heart as 2053, and at HCA West Florida as 1,915, with the conclusion that Baptist "had the largest number of cardiac catheterization admissions of the three hospitals." The evidence in this proceeding is that the memorandum was in error. Actual volumes for October 1991-September 1992 were 912 at Baptist, not 2677. Dr. Howell found Baptist's proposal consistent with health care reform trends towards eliminating the need for CON regulation by enhancing market competitive forces, as a part of Florida's managed competition model, as explained in the Sharpe analysis. Similarly, Dr. Luke described the 1980's use of the CON process to control costs by limiting duplication and the rejection of institution specific planning as outdated. Dr. Luke also favors a model of competition for cost controls. At this time, however, these positions have not been adopted in Florida Statutes and rules. The 1994 Florida Health Security Plan, however, recommends the continuation of CON review of all tertiary services, including open heart surgery. That plan was submitted as a part of AHCA's 1994 legislative proposals. Ms. Dudek described traditional "not normal" circumstances as issues related to financial, geographic, or programmatic access to the proposed service by potential patients, and not facility specific concerns. Facility specific concerns, in this case, include Baptist's attempt to retain cardiologists who wish to perform procedures not approved at Baptist and to improve its position to compete for managed care contracts. Baptist has failed to show not normal circumstances for the departure from the open heart surgery rule, statutes and prior complications of the criteria to the review of CON applications. Baptist has also failed to demonstrate that the facts of this case justify a departure from the guidelines set by rule for the need methodology, use rate and population projections, and the minimum volumes at existing providers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the application of Baptist Hospital of Pensacola for certificate of need number 7184 to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Agency for Health Care Administration District 1. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 18th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Sacred Heart Hospital of Pensacola's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1-11. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 3. 12-14. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2, 3 and 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. Accepted in Finding of Fact 18. Issue not reached. 27-28. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12. Accepted first two sentences in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. Remainder issue not reached. Accepted. Accepted. 32-35. Accepted in Findings of Fact 11 - 16. 36. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 37-38. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 6 and 7. 39. Accepted in Finding of Fact 60. 40-46. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 15. 47-49. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 16. 50-53. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 26. 54-64. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 3 and 15. 65-70. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 12 and 15. 71. Issue not reached. 72-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4, 12, and 16. 79-88. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18-20. 89-95. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. 96. Accepted in Finding of Fact 20. 97-101. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 15. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. 105-110. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-30 and 75. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3-5 and 17. 113-121. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 29 and 30. 122-126. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 27. 127-135. Issue not reached. 136-138. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 139-141. Accepted in general in Findings of Fact 74 - 77. 142-149. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 29 and 30. West Florida's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 6. 3-13. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61-76. 14-15. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 1 and 68. 16. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 64-68 and 75. 17-21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6-7. 22-24. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 25. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 11. 26-27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. 28. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 3 and 4. 29-30. Accepted in Finding of Fact 17. 31-32. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. 33. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15 and 16. 34-36. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 11 and 12. 37-45. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 4 and 16. 46-55. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 11-14. 56-79. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 14, 29, 30 and 55. 80-83. Accepted in Findings of Fact 68, 75 and 77. 84. Accepted in Findings of Fact 29 and 30. 85-87. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. 88. Accepted in Findings of Fact 17-19. 89-90. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-24. 91-92. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. 93-97. Accepted in Finding of Fact 16. 98-100. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 61, 63, 71-74 and 77. 101. Accepted in Findings of Fact 27-28. 102-105. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 and 10. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 75. Accepted in Findings of Fact 23-24. Baptist Hospital, Inc.'s and AHCA's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Finding of Fact 6. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted in Finding of Fact 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 72. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. 9-11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 21. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2, 51 and 60. Accepted in Finding of Fact 24. 14-16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 34. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 19-24. Accepted in Findings of Fact 21-23. 25-30. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 26. 31-37. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 21-26. 38. Rejected in Finding of Fact 23. 39-53(a-g) Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 18-24. 54. Rejected in Finding of Fact 20. 55-58. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected in Finding of Fact 15. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. Accepted in Finding of Fact 26. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. 63-66. Rejected conclusions in Finding of Fact 15. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 15. Rejected conclusions in Finding of Fact 15. 69-78. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 15. 79-81. Rejected in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 17. 82-84. Rejected in or subordinate to conclusion in Finding of Fact 17. 85. Subordinate to Finding of Fact 15. 86-87. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 21. 88-90. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 18. 91-94. Rejected in Finding of Fact 15. 95-97. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 15. 98-121. Issues not reached or rejected in Findings of Fact 74-77 except that the reference to a shared cardiology program should be understood to mean unified operation of programs under one group of cardiologists serving two hospitals, not "joint, cooperative or shared," as AHCA has previously defined those terms in construing subsection 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Accepted in or subordinate to Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. 124-132. Issue not reached or rejected in Findings of Fact 74-77 except that the reference to a shared cardiology program should be understood to mean unified operation of programs under one group of cardiologists serving two hospitals, not "joint, cooperative or shared," as AHCA has previously defined those terms in construing subsection 408.035(1)(e), Florida Statutes. 133-134. Accepted in Findings of Fact 15-18. 135. Accepted in Finding of Fact 75. 136-138. Conclusion not support by testimony cited. 139-145. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2, 36, 37, 38 and 57. 146-152. Accepted in or subordinate to Findings of Fact 1, 29 and 30. 153-165(a-c) Rejected conclusions that highest projections of growth in open heart surgery is reasonable in District 1 in Findings of Fact 11-16. 165(d) Rejected as insignificant number in Finding of Fact 12. 165(e-g) Rejected in Finding of Fact 19. 165(h) Accepted in Findings of Fact 9-10. Rejected in Finding of Fact 29. Accepted as shared is defined in Finding of Fact 20. 168-172. Rejected in Findings of Fact 29-30. 173-177. Rejected conclusions in Findings of Fact 29-30. 178-181. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4, 16, 17 and 18. 182-186. Accepted in 1 as explained in Findings of Fact 27 and 28. Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 52 and accepted in part in Findings of Fact 60. Rejected as most relevant in Findings of Fact 60. 189-199. Accepted in Finding of Fact 25. 200-201. Issue not reached. COPIES FURNISHED: William Wiley, Esquire Darrell White, Esquire Charles A. Stampelos, Esquire McFarlain, Wiley, Cassedy & Jones 600 First Florida Bank Building 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Radey, Esquire Jeffrey Frehn, Esquire Aurell, Radey, Hinkle, Thomas & Baranek 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1000 Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 W. Dexter Douglass, Esquire John A. Rudolph, Jr., Esquire Douglass & Powell Post Office Box 1674 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard Patterson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's name and address are North Broward Hospital District d/b/a North Broward Medical Center, 201 E Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33604. The North Broward Hospital District is a Special Taxing District created by the Florida Legislature. It currently owns and operates three public, nonprofit hospitals in Broward County including Broward General Medical Center ("BGMC") and North Broward Medical Center Respondent, Department of Heath and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS"), is responsible for the administration of Section 381.493 through 381.499, Fla. Stat. ("the CON statute"), and Fla. Administrative Code Ch. 10-5 ("the CON rules"). Under the foregoing, authorities, HRS reviews applications for CONs to construct, purchase or otherwise implement certain new health care facilities and new institutional health care services, as defined by the CON statute. One of these new institutional health care services subject to HRS' review under the CON statute and CON rules is open-heart surgery service, as defined in Fla. Admin. Code Rule 10-5.11(16)(a). By formal application under the CON statute and CON rules which was deemed complete by HRS effective October 16, 1985, NBMC applied for a certificate of need ("CON") to institute an open-heart surgery service at 201 E. Sample Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33604. Exhibit "A" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of NBMC's application for certificate of need for open-heart surgery. NBMC's application was denied by HRS by letter dated February 28, 1986, received by NBMC open March 10, 1986. Exhibit "B" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of said letter. Publication of the denial appears at Vol. 12; No. 11, Florida Administrative Weekly (March 14, 1986). HRS' basis for denying the application is contained in the "State Agency Action Report". Exhibit "C" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of HRS' State Agency Action Report pertaining to NBMC's application. NBMC has petitioned HRS for formal Section 120.57(1), Fla. Stat., administrative proceedings challenging the denial of its application for open- heart surgery. Exhibit "D" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of that petition. In its application, NBMC stated that one of its sister hospitals, BGMC, currently provided open-heart surgical services. NBMC proposed in its application to utilize the same open-heart surgical team at NBMC as was then practicing at BGMC. Applicants for CONs for open-heart surgery services must satisfy certain regulatory standards prescribed in CON Rule 10-5.11(16). These standards include: (k)1. There shall be no additional open- heart surgery programs established unless: The service volume of each existing and approved open-heart surgery program within the service area is operating at and is and expected to continue to operate at a minimum of 350 adult open-heart surgery cases per year or 130 pediatric heart cases per year; and The conditions specified in (e)4., above will be met by the proposed program. (E.S.) Rule 10-5.11(16)(e)4. provides in pertinent part as follows: There shall be a minimum of 200 adult open- heart procedures performed annually, within three years after initiation of service, an any institution in which open-heart surgery is performed for adults. (E.S.) Exhibit "E" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of CON Rule 10-5.11(16). 10. In 43 Fed. Reg. 13040, 13048 (March 28, 1978) (42 C.F.R. 121.207), the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") set forth the federal CON standards for open-heart surgery, as part of the National Guidelines for Health Planning. The National Guidelines for Health Planning are referenced in HRS's State Agency Action Report. Exhibit "F" is a true, correct, and authentic copy of that portion of the Nation Guidelines for Health Planning which pertain to the implementation of open-heart surgery services. The National Guidelines for Health Planning also provide that approval of new open-heart surgery services should be contingent upon existing units operating and continuing to operate at a level of at least 350 procedures per year. The National Guidelines for Health Planning further provide as follows: In some areas, open-heart surgical teams, including surgeons and specialized technologists, are utilizing more than one institution. For these institutions, the guidelines may be applied to the combined number of open-heart procedures performed by the surgical team where an adjustment is justifiable in line with Section 121.6(B) and promotes more cost effective use of available facilities and support personnel. In such cases, in order to maintain quality care a minimum of 75 open-heart procedures in any institution is advisable, which is consistent with recommendations of the American College of Surgeons. (E.S.) HRS' CON Rule 10-5.11(16); which contains the "350" standard, does not contain any comparable exception for institutions sharing open-heart surgical teams. NBMC's application for CON projects 200 open-heart surgeries by the end of the third year of operations and, when combined with BGMC's open-heart procedures satisfies the exception contained in the National Guidelines for Health Planning, as described above. There are no disputed issues of material fact that will require an evidentiary hearing in this matter. The parties therefore agree that the matter shall be submitted pursuant to legal memoranda and oral argument. The parties' legal memoranda will be due on June 17, 1986, and oral argument will be held on the scheduled hearing date of June 19, 1986. The parties agree to allow responses to the legal memoranda, which responses shall be submitted no later than June 26; 1986.
